On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 01:21:16PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: > Without having read the draft, it occurs to me that the whole idea of > DAD latency impacting hand-offs is a self inflicted problem. From the > perspective of 'failure to plan on your part does not constitute an > emergency on my part', it would seem the prudent thing for a MN to do is > establish DAD for all candidate prefixes well before it is ready to > start using them.
Absolutely. If only more link-layers made this possible! Unfortunately, in practice, MNs often move unexpectedly due to the vagaries of RF propagation. > Which is more > important, making sure a node can move quickly, or making sure a > stationary node is not interrupted??? The draft attempts to address this, by making sure that the Optimistic MN will not interrupt established connections even in the case of collision. cheers, -----N -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
