> So, perhaps my comment is a bit naive, but as the changes have been > discussed in the MIP WG and many people think the changes are > sane in the IPv6 WG ... I wonder what would be accomplished by > breaking them out in a seperate document. Since the IPv6 > WG will be working updating ND, could not the MIPv6 draft > make the recommendations and then these recomentations be taken > as the starting point for the ND discussions in the IETF?
I can see a focused technical discussion on a small problem statement and a short document can actually result in better technical solutions. For instance, instead of changing the fixed rate limit for solicited RAs it make be a lot better to rate limit RAs using a token bucket filter. That can handle the rate limiting when a bunch of machines that boot after a power failure while still being very responsive to MNs that send RSs to detect movement. Also, it makes sense to point out that in the case where all the MNs can get a link up/down indication there isn't a need to waste the bandwidth of the frequent unsolicited RAs but instead rely on the MN sending an RS then the link up indication shows up. The point is that we could discuss the above agaist the MIPv6 spec, but that would delay the spec. If it was a separate 3 page spec we could do the technically right thing without worrying about MIPv6 spec delays. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
