On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Robert Elz wrote: > | But you agree that the above configuration is very rare, really just a > | "corner case". Someone _might_ want it though. > > I don't agree with the first sentence there, I think I'm (a) someone...
I'd like to hear what kind of network configuration you have in mind. > The problem is that you have to know what is enabled/disabled on every other > node on the link as well. So, this would need to be yet another RA > parameter (and there'd have to be some rule on what was permitted when > there is no router in that case). > > It really is simpler just to always do DAD. I agree this is a problem :-(. > On optimistic DAD - maybe I misunderstood what Erik was suggesting, but > I assumed the "optimistic" wouldn't be "irrational" .. that is, for > optimistic DAD, which I think I'd certainly not object to (though I'm also > not sure the actual cost of full DAD is enough for it to matter) I'd > assumed the idea would be to send the first DAD NS, and wait for a reply, > and if no reply came to that one, assume the address is OK, while > simultaneously going on and doing the rest of the DAD procedure (killing > the address if it fails). That more or less cuts the DAD delay by 2/3 (but > it doesn't eliminate it). My main point is just that one should be able "optimize" DAD somehow if there are long latencies involved (e.g. serialized full DAD is unacceptable with many addresses). How, that's another issue. Else folks that need to optimize it will do so anyway. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
