>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:53:30 +1000,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Before going to the specific ones, I'd like to present the basic logic
>> I'd (personally) envision in this discussion. (It's my personal
>> opinion. I know opinions may vary on this.)
>>
>> The most important thing is to not cause disruption for non-optimistic
>> nodes. If there is any possibility of disruption, I basically want to
>> confirm consensus if it is acceptable for those who implemented
>> (and/or are operating) the "standard" behavior and is not particularly
>> interested in implementing/operating the optimistic behavior. The
>> logic like "this only matters in corner cases so it should be
>> acceptable" from the side that wants to introduce the optimistic
>> behavior is not justified, IMO.
> Okay, we differ here: I think the aims of Optimistic DAD are to
> configure the address without delay; to remain interoperable with
> unmodified hosts and routers; and to mitigate disruption
> in the case of a collision with any node.
In a general sense, this matches my understanding. But see below
regarding the "interoperability".
>> I understand the motivation, but it is not convincing enough based on
>> my "basic logic". Also, if the motivation to optimize roaming between
>> a mobile node and a router that has the ability to support the MN, do
>> we really need to realize that by overloading the existing protocol
>> mechanism, with taking a risk to cause disruption? Can't we do that
>> with, e.g., a new ND option that only works for nodes that understand
>> it?
> ... and this gets back to my first point: one aim of Optimistic DAD
> is to provide an _interoperable_ solution, the kind of thing you
> can build into mobile nodes and use even if the router of the access
> network doesn't understand it.
If the unsolicited NAs as a signal did not cause any bad effect on
existing implementation, I'd also call that "interoperable" solution.
But they actually do cause a bad effect of increasing the odds of
disruption.
On the other hand, the new ND option is really an "interoperable"
solution, since existing unmodified routers simply ignore the new
option (see, e.g., Section 6.1.1 of RFC2461) and this does not have
any bad effect on existing implementations.
So, IMO, we cannot justify introducing the signaling unsolicited NAs
by saying "the goal is to provide an interoperable solution".
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
