> Certainly obtaining router information is only one part of the problem > and as you pointed out, the one second delay for DAD is a greater > problem. From a mobile IPv6 point of view, there is also the problem of > completing binding updates with home agents or correspondant nodes that > are a long way away. However, there has been some discussion about > "optimistic DAD" or even doing away with DAD for certain types of > addresses (though concensus on that seems a way off...) and heirachical > MIPv6 reduces the need to signal far away devices. I see sending fast > RAs as one piece in the puzzle.
Seems to me then that this document is a bit narrowly scoped and may even miss the point. Don't we need to look at the overall problem and then see what can be done to address the overall problem adequately? In general, I don't know that its all that useful to focus on a narrow part of a bigger problem unless the bigger problem is sufficiently understood that the point solution is understood to be an important and useful component of it. How do we know that this change will make any significant difference in practice given the general problem? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
