In your previous mail you wrote: I am not sure I understand your argument that the issue of sending periodic RAs should be handled at the link-layer.
=> I don't understand how my argument was translated in this one too (:-). If the network layer is going to send the periodic RA, how do you expect the link layer to deal with it? This would break the behavior. => my argument is that "to adapt the network layer to solve possible issues from the periodic sending of RAs" is a bad idea and these issues should be handled at the link-layer support for dormant nodes. > => no, I've said the space where to find a solution is the dormant > mode of the link layer, not the network layer. And about my idea > it is based on the fact the dormant node doesn't need to know what > happens until it wakes up. But it is only the radio part of the host that is dormant... => this is clearly wrong: anything relying on the radio access should be dormant too (*). Your proposal is very vague. => it is more a way where to look up for solutions. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS (*): in fact IMHO timers should be classified into hard timers which have to run in all cases and loose timers which should be delayed during the dormant phase plus a grace period. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
