>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:15:20 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue is now resolved.
(Sorry for the delayed response)
The suggested resolution basically works for me, but I'd reword the
text a bit.
First, the suggested text may provide the impression that the random
delay can be omitted *unconditionally* if it is just convenient
(mainly for mobile nodes). But it should only be justified when
congestion of solicitations can be considered rare (e.g., when a
single node roams links). I believe the new text should clarify the
justification.
I'd also move the added part to a separate paragraph (but it may be a
matter of taste).
So, I'd suggest the following:
Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the
transmission for a random amount of time between 0 and
MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY. [...]
...
again before sending the first Router Solicitation message.
(no change from RFC2461 so far)
If the host knows the congestion is unlikely to happen, the host
MAY omit the random delay if necessary. For instance, a mobile
node, using [MIPv6], moving to a new link would need to discover
such movement as soon as possible to minimize the amount of packet
losses resulting from the change in its topological movement.
Router Solicitations provide a useful tool for movement detection
in Mobile IPv6 as they allow mobile nodes to determine movement to
new links. Additionally, when the node (re)enables the interface
after moving to the new link independently, there should be no
worry about the congestion. Hence, if such a mobile node received
link layer information indicating that movement might have taken
place, it MAY send a Router Solicitation immediately, without
random delays. The strength of such indications should be assessed
by the mobile node's implementation and is outside the scope of
this specification.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
