> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> > => the probability argument gives no guarantee.
>
> Nothing can give you full guarantees
>
> => globally unique IIDs give a full guarantee as I explained
> in a previous mail (with what is this guarantee).
globally unique IIDs can give you full guarantees, right, but the
implementation of globally unique IIDs can not. In any case, I do agree with
you that globally unique IIDs is a good solution but today it is not
available and it don�t seems to be in a short time
(i would like to see one)
>
> There is no option that always work,
> all the options work fine with a certain probability, The real
> question is
> if the probability that it fails is low enough.
>
> => no, the real question is who has to cleanup the mess when it fails.
> I prefer this guy has the control over the acceptable options too.
This is also an important aspect but if the probability of that mess is very
low and the "solution" to avoid the mess is expensive (for example for
handovers), what is better?
>
> And what does low enough
> means basically depends on the probablility of failure of the others
> elements related. So the question to be answered is if the
> probability of
> colision with random generated address identiers is low enough
> compared with
> the probability of failure of the other devices and protocols
> in the net.
> This is what we are trying to quantify.
>
> => there always is a difference between zero and not zero.
zero is not real
>
> It is also important to consider the cost, i.e. most of the
> times you can
> improve a solution (meaning that you can get a lower
> probability of failure)
> but this usually implies aditional costs, the question is if
> this is worthy.
>
> => worthy for who? If you takes the benefits and I have to take
> the problem
> in the case that should never happen but has just happened, my answer is
> a clear *no*.
Every mobile user gets the benefits avoiding the time needed for DAD, and a
very small percentage of all users pay the price. This is the tradoff that
we would like to quantify
>
> I mean whether you like it or not you are playing russian roulette :-),
> DAD can fail as well as all the other elements in your network
>
> => DAD is not perfect but my life is better with DAD than it would be
> without DAD. And I'd like to decide what is good for my network.
> This is the point I don't like at all in the MIPv6 I-D proposal,
> the MN user is not the person who may decide if he can avoid or defer DAD.
>
Life is not better with DAD for mobile users
Regards, m
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
