So I listened to this argument for a very long
time (too long) yesterday wondering what on earth
the big deal was. I still don't get it. If people
want to dial up the ND rate, it only hurts their
link. There's no greater internet impact that I
can see. If it's taking up too much bandwidth, a
sniffer would show it pretty quickly and you turn
the knob down, so wo cares?
That said, I do think this is a pretty poor
substitute for L2 information which probably
should be making its way up the driver.
Mike
Erik Nordmark writes:
> > 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
