The problem with this proposal is that the AP doesn't exist as far as IETF is
concerned. An AP is not an IP device, and it is not on the map as far as the
Internet architecture is concerned.. Routers do exist and therefore the fast RA
could be standardized in the IETF.
That said, I think the proposal is a good one and it should be taken to IEEE
802.11. Somehow, we need to figure out a way to get 802.11 to pay more attention
to MIP.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Youn-Hee Han" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: Fw: RE: MIPv6 and ND value changes
> Richard wrote :
>
> > I'd add the minor points that section 11.5.2 contains a basic version of
optimistic
> > DAD (its been there since draft 12) and that there AP cached RAs are an
> > alternative to fast RAs in yet another separate draft.
>
> I agree with Richard.
> The AP cahed RAs can be esaily implemented and an alternative to fast RAs.
> IMHO, The AP which cache RAs and sends them to an MN at its association with
the AP,
> is more deployable approach than router supporting fast RA.
> The change of AP is easier than the change of router.
>
> Youn-Hee Han
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
