Pekka Savola wrote: > > > > FWIW, I fully support Thomas Narten on his view that MIPv6 should not be > > making all of these assumptions to e.g. Neighbor Discovery timer values. > > s/assumptions/arbitrary changes/
on the contrary, they have been well thought out and discussed on the MIPv6 mailing list. take a look at the changes first. for example RFC 2462 says if DAD fails, the node SHOULD disable the interface. MIPv6 says if DAD fails, generate a random interface ID and try again. take a look at the following URL for the discussion. http://www.piuha.net/~jarkko/publications/mipv6/issues/issue79.txt can you give me one good reason why this change that MIPv6 recommends is arbitrary? come on..... Vijay -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
