>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:52:28 +1100,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You might recall some time ago I stirred up some interest
> in my Optimistic DAD draft, which seeks to eliminate DAD delay
> without significantly increasing the risk involved in address
> collision. In the meantime it's picked up a couple of independant
> implementations[1] and a couple of conference publications[2].
(snip)
> Please let me know what you think ... and if there's enough
> interest maybe we can discuss it further at Seoul.
I'd like to know if there has been a consensus to pursue any sort of
DAD optimization in the first place. There have surely been lots of
discussions related to this issue, and, as far as I can recall, the
idea of optimization has never been adopted.
One fundamental question that I remember is whether optimizing DAD
really makes much sense while there are other kinds of delays such as
random delay (up to 1 second) for the first RS and random delay at
routers before responding to an RS. Without addressing the
fundamental question(s), we'd simply restart similar divergent
discussions, waisting lots of energy and time without seeing progress.
p.s. I've read the latest draft and have some (mainly editorial)
comments. I'll post the comments in a separate message.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
