Hi Masataka, Greg, and Pekka,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Because of its bloated set of features, I think ND hopeless.
and Pekka Savola wrote:
But while IPv6 over WLAN may not be fully optimal, as it requires link-layer acknowledgements of multicast packets, I think many already deem it to work to a *sufficient* degree .. and I'm not sure whether there would be consensus for specifying e.g. the changes you suggested. Data (simulations, measurements, etc.) about the performance, latency, etc. increases might help.
and elsewhere Greg Daley wrote:
If there are issues in creating new NC entries (particularly for mobile nodes) then they should be tackled in IRTF MobOpts or fed to the MIP6/MIPSHOP WGs.
All of these groups may require some quantification of the problems and the proposed solutions before they take on work though (rather than dire 'ND is broken' statements).
I tend to agree with Greg and Pekka here. I do agree that we have performance and other issues with wireless link layers. Many of these issues are known and currently being dealt with somewhere, and for the rest we should carefully define the problems and discuss how they should be solved. Some issues can be solved using IPv6 over Foo documents, while others are best suited for a general solution.
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
