Erik, What you bring up hard rate limit vs token bucket filter and the like are optimizations not brokeness in MIPv6 and so is the idea of a separate spec. We can always optimize and continue to optimize etc. Leaving it in the current spec does not remove the potential for optimization. Taking it out may cause MIPv6 to not ship. I am for shipping unless there is a well known interoeperable problem. Lets be consistent on the rules and not make them up all the time as we go it is impossible to expect us the worker bees to keep up with moving targets. Ship the spec.
/jim [Honor, Commitment, Integrity] > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:07 AM > To: Charlie Perkins > Cc: Erik Nordmark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MIPv6 and ND value changes > > > > 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. > > I don't want to eliminate it - I want to make it better. > But the fear of trying to make it better will further delay the MIPv6 > specification makes me not want to bring up those issues. > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
