>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 05:47:01 +1000,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Okay, if that's the one you're worried about:
> Let's imagine that node A is preparing to start talking to node B
> when node C arrives and optimistically squats on the address of B.
> If C's NA(O=0) arrives while A has an NC entry in a receptive state,
> an incorrect entry will indeed be created. However, B's NA(O=1)
> will soon override this incorrect entry, and if it arrives _before_
> C's NA(O=0) the incorrect entry will not be created.
I 'm sure I've already fully understood the scenario. You will not
have to repeat the points again, since I think the difference just
comes from the difference on fundamental views as I said in my
previous message.
> Erik suggested replacement text elsewhere in this thread: I'm
> happy with that. It doesn't encourage sending the NAs in
> any way, but it does warn that if someone does decide to send
> them they MUST have O=0. That's fine by me -- the bit I
> really wanted to keep was the MUST have O=0 warning!
> Are you happy with Erik's text?
Not really, I'm afraid...I'll try to make a response to Erik's message
regarding this point (but it seems to be too late for the wg meeting).
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
