On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Vijay Devarapalli 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.....
This isn't MIPv6 specific. One could say this case if only relevant if you use manually configured care-of addresses (that is, clashes are not so rare that you need to, in practise, care about them). Oh you don't assign them manually? Forget about it then. It's a good enhancement, but doen't belong in the MIPv6 spec. btw. "arbitrary" was a bit strong word; I should have said "substantial". -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
