>>>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:02:54 -0500,
>>>>> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Given my point above, I would argue that we shouldn't add a delay to
> MLD messages.
So, do you have any opinion among the options I raised in this thread?
1. no change in rfc2462bis (expecting MLDv1 and/or MLDv2 will
eventually be updated with a random delay)
2. the original proposal of mine (expecting MLDv1 and/or MLDv2 will
eventually be updated with a random delay):
impose a random delay even for the first NS after the corresponding
MLD when the sending node knows there is no delay for the MLD.
3. Greg's suggestion:
require a random delay before the first MLD (in rfc2462bis).
(including "4. none of above").
Apparently you'd reject option 3 from your point. I also know that
you are NOT expecting MLDv1/v2 will be updated with a random delay,
even if you prefer option 1 or 2 itself.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
