On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote: A few comments on some portions of the draft.
On the general approach, first: 1) the draft needs to spell out much more clearly how the modifications to RFC2461/RFC2462 (and whether they have been done) affect on the behaviour on the links where there have or haven't been upgraded nodes. 2) I'm not sure if this is the right approach. Something better suited could be found, I believe, in adding functionality to first-hop routers' ND cache behaviour; a router could answer directly which could be interpreted like "don't use that address, I just recently saw it used here by another node.. but if you're really sure you want it, perform DAD as specified in RFC2461/2". Two particular nits: 1) [DUPONT] has had a revision. 2) Optimistic DAD is a useful optimization because DAD is far more likely to succeed than fail, by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000 to one[SOTO]. This makes it worth a little disruption in the failure case to provide faster handovers in the successful case, as long as the disruption is recoverable. ==> this is totally, and completely wrong. [SOTO] only provide analysis in *some* cases, in particular autoconfigured vs privacy addresses. For manually assigned addresses, I believe the ratio is closer to 1:10 or 1:100 (unmeasurable, of course). -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
