The draft covers this quite well near the end of section 7.5. It talks specifically about low bandwidth networks which maybe could be expanded to include any network where L2 support is available, but I think the intent is pretty clear.
Richard. Erik Nordmark wrote: > > > MIPv6 does not say router should send RAs more frequently. it > > just says access routers SHOULD be configurable to send RAs > > more frequently. this is to be used in the absense of any L2 > > help. > > Vijay, > > One part of the problem I see is that your last sentence above doesn't > appear in the draft. Getting the applicability of the frequent unsolicited > RAs stated is important. > Doing this in a short separate draft doesn't have to delay the mipv6 > spec, but working out the text before the mipv6 spec get last called > will add delay as far as I can tell. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
