Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-manyfolks-ipv6-cellular-host-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:43:53 +0200

Hi Pekka,

> "basic functionality of a CN" has not been defined explicitly, IMO.
> 
> The requirement that Home Address Option MUST be processed is 
> nothing new; it's a requirement for every IPv6 node as currently 
> being specified.
> 
> Therefore, the requirement here must be stated more clearly.  
> One could gather one of the basic funtionalities of a CN would be 
> to be able to process incoming Binding Updates.  What's your stand 
> on this?
> 
> Instead of saying basic functionality, say which 
> functionality in the main sentence.

Thanks for the comments.  Jari has already replied, but I thought I'd add
my 2 cents.  Given your last sentence, I think we could do a rather
simple rewrite of the paragraph would be in order.

However, because handling of binding updates is still unclear in the
MIP WG (as is the status of MIPv6), we may have to create a default
treatment for this.  As you know, we're trying to get this draft 
completely rather quickly because of 3GPP deadlines.  Additionally,
I would imagine that IPv6 enabled phones will start being released in
2002.  What that means is, we need to specify a (minimum) default 
treatment for handling the Home Agent Option & Binding Updates.
This treatment might be sub-optimal, but it would allow for a 
cellular host to at least behave gracefully.

Comments?
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:18:25 +0200 (EET)

> cellular host to at least behave gracefully.

I really cannot offer much advise on what to suggest for 3GPP.  I don't
know the context well enough, and this particular subject is rather blurry 
right now.

If one would like at least some mechanism that should work, I guess 
recommending both BU and home address option might be good.  But on the 
other hand, both of these have security implications...

An important point to consider (perhaps not in this context, but in
general) is: how will communication between mobile nodes and stationary 
nodes not implementing either BU processing or HAO work?  This is probably 
something that will occur in real life quite often in the next few years.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords