On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 17:25, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
> Okay, I'm happy to reach the consensus, too.
Futile though it may be, I would like to register disagreement.
If the intention truly was to simplify the specification, we would be
going to pure DIID. As it is, removing mention of DIID seems like a
gratuitous change at best. As an author of one of those DIID
implementations, I find this somewhat unfortunate.
Also, there is the problem of DAD storms occurring whenever a new prefix
appears on a link. Will the revision be introducing a random delay
before a node begins the DAD procedure for each new address, or will
that make the specification too complex?
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
