Hi James, > The primary issue is whether the ND spec itself should benefit.
I agree. I think it should. My suggestion is that MIPv6 discusses what is needed for MIPv6 (maybe even moved into an appendix) and this data is taken as a starting point for updating 2461. > The behavior of DAD failure is an example. RFC 2461 currently has a built-in DoS > hole in that it specifies the host should shut down the interface if there is a > DAD failure. This is a perfect opportunity for propagating a successful DoS > attack, and is not restricted to MIP. I agree. > By burying the solution for this into the MIP spec, it > removes the possibility that wider IPv6 nodes can benefit. I don't think we should bury it in the MIP spec, but first address it in the MIPv6 spec then take that & move it into a 2461-bis draft. > However, there are other proposed ND optimizations that are purely mobile > specific. Some of these are in the MIP spec, some aren't. I think it makes some > sense to group these into a seperate spec in the MIP group. Why can't it be in MIPv6 & then moved in the 2461-bis? John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
