RE: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 for Some Second and Third Gener ation Cellular Hosts"

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote:
>   > 3041 isn't really all that beneficial if IID part is 
>   > already quite random 
>   > (and is changing from time to time, e.g. in the scope of a 
>   > day or week).
> 
> => Agreed, but unfortunately it is left up to implementations,
> so hosts can't really rely on the GGSN to do that. 
> So RFC 3041 might come handy after all. 

If nothing can be assumed, then yes, I think it probably should be 
implemented.  Turned on..?  A different thing..

>Actually, as a side
> node, I think 2462 should be deprecated and replaced by 
> 3041....please don't shoot!

Where did I put my M16..... ;-)

In the meantime, you might want to check out 
draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-00.txt .. there's an omission or two, but 
should be recommended reading for RFC3041 advocates :-)

-- 
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------