Hello Erik, I am particularly concerned that we have a Mobile IPv6 specification that, when implemented, gives sensible results. Eliminating the possibility for having faster router advertisements does not give sensible results.
However, the stated reasons for wanting to change the existing Mobile IPv6 specification in this particular way are not logically valid. I will try to make this clear in what follows. Erik Nordmark wrote: > Even though I think the current ND changes in the MIPv6 spec make sense, Thank you. > I'm concerned that implementors for IPv6 routers, which don't otherwise > implement MIPv6, will find these pieces deep inside the MIPv6 specification. I'm concerned for implementers of systems that want to support Mobile IPv6. When the specifications are rewritten for all routers, then at that time the revised specificatoin needs to take the Mobile IPv6 specification into account. This would completely resolve your fear. It could be that the new specification would make some parameter settings conditional on whether or not the routers are expected to provide support for the attachment of mobile nodes. > I think these things are more likely to be widely implemented if > they live in a separate and shorter RFC. That is trying to predict the future in a very dangerous way. Your statement would only be true if no one tried to put any other features in there. The discussion about optimistic DAD, for instance, might take months. I have no faith that such a document would progress rapidly. Look at the flow-lable specification for example... > Also, we are likely to discover additional optimizations that might help > with mobility and having a set of small specific extensions and/or > modifications around ND or other protocols seems like a quicker way to make > progress on these things. That has no bearing on the immediate problem. In fact, I would suggest that the attempt, while praiseworthy, would have exactly the effect of slowing down this one crucial piece of parameter specification., > So while I don't want to slow down the MIPv6 specification or the > implementation and deployment, I think breaking out these pieces will help > with specification and protocol modularity, which makes it easier and quicker > to revise the specifications along the standards track etc. Most of the things suggested do not break the specification. Eliminating the possibility for faster advertisements does. This has been shown, and work with faster advertisements has been done many times. The discussion has already been made in the IPng working group from years ago, and nothing has happened to warrant this particular change. There is no justification for it. Anything that has to be done in a more general setting would still be quite well able to be done in the more general setting, regardless of what goes into the Mobile IPv6 specification. Regards, Charlie P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
