On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 17:56 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le mercredi 10 janvier 2007 17:14, Pars Mutaf a écrit : > > > So, the proposal is that if the hash collides for different names, > > > then "johnsmith.local" must rename himself, right? > > > > Right. Please let me know if you see a problem with this. > > My understanding of James remarks is that your proposal merely moves the > problem away from DNS to Neighbor Discovery, but does not solve the > core issue at all, which is that some kind of multicast/broadcast is > needed for non-point-to-point IPv6 links.
Hi Remi, (Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to respond to each mail but I rate limited myself) The main idea of my proposal was: "If it works using unicast, then we *really* don't care what happens at L2." Is it multicast capable or not? It is poor design or not? Is it costly or not ? (in terms of energy and signaling)... All these questions would disappear. That was my point. But folks say: multicast is a MUST. I can't really argue against that. pars (I CCed again namedroppers without your permission, supposing that is not a problem for you) -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
