Vijay,
I think the issue isn't whether this particular optimization is important or
not. The issue is whether we should leave it in the base spec or put it into a
spec with all the other ND optimization bits.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: MIPv6 and ND value changes
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
