In your previous mail you wrote: We certainly don't want an unclear specification. And, if a network manager needs to support mobile nodes on any local domains, that network manager needs in many circumstances to have the information that running more frequent advertisements is advisable. => I don't want to use frequent RAs on my network because there is an 802.11 AP on it (APs are L2 bridges).
Can you suggest a way to make the specification more clear? => last chance solutions should be marked and never get more than a MAY. However, when that option is not available, our experience and that of many others shows that the faster beaconing is effective and can be applied without any surprises. => another concern is RAs are bad beacons... There have been numerous papers published about this, which led to the appropriate specification for Mobile IPv4. The situation for Mobile IPv6 is not any different. => I'd really like to get a spec without surprise applicable in my fast Ethernet LAN with 5 routers, 50 hosts and 2 APs. BTW there are 3 prefixes on it (multi-homed between two ISPs). Regards [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
