>>>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:16:02 +0200,
>>>>> Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> So I really believe in the DAD usefulness and if you'd like to remove
>> or "optimize" DAD on one of my networks my answer will be "NO!".
> I believe the optimistic DAD folks are very keen on keeping the DAD
> functional. That is, it is a requirement that networks and nodes must
> be able to recover from a collision situation. No one is proposing
> removing DAD.
> Since most folks appear to agree that any optimization is not
> a part of 2462bis and that Jinmei's option 1 is reasonable, I
> think we can close the issue for 2462bis.
> As for the rest, I believe we should discuss optimistic or optimized
> DAD schemes under a different thread, since this really has nothing
> to do with 2462bis. And for that discussion, let's not label someone's
> method a priori as "removal". There may be specific concerns in the
> specific methods, but if that's the case then they have to be
> corrected or rejected.
I totally agree with you, especially in the sense that whether
optimistic DAD is good or not can/should be discussed separately from
this particular issue for rfc2462bis.
Thanks for the prudent clarification.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
