James, I do not think we need to change 2462. Vendors just provide an option to disable. Erik's comments on why we did it still apply. We as protocol designers must require DAD.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:55 PM > To: Hesham Soliman (ERA); Margaret Wasserman > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Should DAD be optional? [Was > draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?] > > > Margaret, > > > I don't think that we should publish an informational document that > > advises some implementors to do something that specifically > > disagrees with a MUST requirement in a standards-track document. > > If the standards-track document is broken, we need to fix it > > instead. > > > > DAD has a substantial performance impact on handover if the > Mobile IPv6 care of address is changed. If the address provision > scheme is such that duplicate addresses are not possible, then > I believe it should be possible to disable it. > > I agree that the change must be made in the standards-track document. > Perhaps we could quickly get a short document that describes when > DAD can be disabled, so that the issue can be resolved as quickly > as possible. In the Mobile IPv6 specification, DAD is only a MAY. > > jak > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
