>________________________________
> From: Owen DeLong <owen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: "v6ops@xxxxxxxx WG" <v6ops@xxxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 7:04 AM
>Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
>
>
>
<snip>
>
>Why is there such a push to do this?
>>[av] Because the Operators are currently missing such a document, so they went to the IETF to work on one.
>>As written in the document the number of well behaving IPv6 capable mobile devices is not very high at the moment.
>>This initiative is intended to help the developers.
>
>Is there any reason a cellphone shouldn't just meet the standard requirements like any other router?
>
I agree with this view. I don't think there is anything that special about portable computers that that can make phone calls ("mobile multihomed hosts"*).
It seems to me the only thing special here is that one of the links the MMHH has is a 3G/4G etc. one, and the operators of those networks have certain views on how those networks should operate. That would seem to me to give them the ability to select what parameters are chosen for IPv6 operation over their networks e.g., stateful DHCPv6 only, prefix lifetimes of 2/1 hours etc., but to extend that to listing IPv6 protocol implementation requirements across the whole MMHH seems excessive and unnecessary. Surely the existing IPv6 node requirements RFC is enough for that?
Regards,
Mark.
*"The Rapid Rise of the Mobile Multihomed Host, and what it might mean to the network"
http://www.users.on.net/~markachy/The_Rapid_Rise_of_the_MMHH.pdf