Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> **
>
> 1. Did you consider a requirement to support RFC 4191? Many people are
> asking for the ability to support more-specific routes, especially in the
> MIF working group.
> [Med] We didn't considered it because there are some assumptions to be
> made: e.g., do we expect all interfaces are connected to networks managed
> by the same administrative entity? How to manage conflicts if distinct
> policies are sent? etc.
>
>
I don't understand. An interface is connected to only network, and the
cellular link is point-to-point. By definition, there can only be one
entity on the other side. Where's the conflict?


>   2. REQ#28 says the device MUST (no less!) support ND proxy. I don't
> think it's appropriate to say that an experimental RFC is a requirement.
> Additionally, ND proxy is not fully baked, and it has issues with certain
> topologies. We need a better solution than that.
> [Med] RFC4389 is the best reference we can quote at this stage. Do you
> have a pointer to an I-D where these issues are discussed? We can add a
> pointer to that I-D.
>
> There is no working solution at this time. This can be made to work when
tethering over the cellular link, but the ND proxy RFC is not the way to do
it. I think we need a new document to specify this.