Alex, On 3/14/07 11:47 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Basavaraj Patil wrote: >> Hello, >> >> A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at: >> http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt >> >> This revision incorporates changes based on some of the comments made by the >> directorate. It will be submitted to the ID repository as soon as the gates >> are opened. > > Raj, is there a plan to deal with the interoperability issue where the > AP tells the Station to auto-configure statelessly and the AR tells it > statefully? > > The AP may send REG-RSP telling the Station to use DHCP. > > The AR may send an RA telling the Station to use SLAAC. The issue arises when we consider managed and unmanaged hosts as defined by 802.16. Managed hosts are the ones that may use the secondary management connection. Secondary management connection is optional and as we have discussed in the past this is an option in the .16 specs that exists but very likely unused. I can tell you that in the case of Mobile WiMAX the secondary management connection is not used. I agree that a BS and the AR should be synchronized in terms of what method is indicated to the MS for address configuration. > > There may be an interoperability issue, if the two indicators are different. Yes. > > This issue can of course be considered as a network management issue, > where advice could be given to network deployers of AR and AP to > configure their networks correctly. Correct. A deployment should be able to ensure that the indication to the MS in the REG-RSP and RA are synchronized. I can add some text in the I-D to ensure that this issue is noted in the address configuration section. > > And this is a time when both 802.16 is changing (Corrigendum 2 under > discussion but still allows AP to indicate to MN what autoconf method to > use) and the RA definition is changing (draft-2462bis indicates 'M' flag > may not be used, but an 'autonomous' flag instead). > > What do you think? Do I get this issue correctly? Or is the issue > important, less important, etc. This is a valid issue but I think it can be clarified in the I-D itself by recognizing it and recommending that the indication by the BS and AR are synced. We can also mention it to IEEE but that is about the scope of things that we can do. -Raj > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf