On 2004-02-20, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> I support work on optimistic DAD. I would propose
> it to be taken up by the IPv6 WG. Not as a part of
> the 2462bis effort but separately.
Thanks Jari, Hesham, James for your interest ... I
hope we'll get a chance to discuss in the WG.
> I would also note tha
I support work on optimistic DAD. I would propose
it to be taken up by the IPv6 WG. Not as a part of
the 2462bis effort but separately.
I would also note that optimistic DAD is useful for
anything that expects a fast attachment time or
frequent movements, not just MIPv6 but also HIP
and MOBIKE.
I b
Nick,
I think optimistic DAD is a very useful (and essential)
tool for mobile nodes in multiaccess links (e.g. WLANs) since
it eliminates a major delay component. So I'd support this
draft for a std track RFC.
I'm also surprised that this work is not addressed in DNA
as I thought it'd be in t
Hi Nick,
I'd certainly be interested in hearing about this and having the IPv6 group
take it up, since the MIP group declined to take it up. I haven't read the
draft in a while, but I will try to take a look at it before the meeting. If
there is enough interest, I am not sure whether it would be a
CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT & CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS -- INTERNETWORKING 2004Technical Program: May 13-14, 2004 Las Vegas, Nevadahttp://www.caitr.org/internetworking04/
In conjunction with NetWorld+Interop Las Ve
Note:
I think you should also point to, using informational reference, to
draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00.txt, in the appropriate place in
"CHANGES FROM RFC 2461" -- to give some more background to this.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On-link assumptions in 2461 considered
> Mark,
>
>
> >"Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to support the experimental A6 and
> >DNAME Resource Records [RFC-3363]."
> >
> > I object to recommending that DNAME's not be supported. RFC
> > 3363 does NOT say that. It says that they shouldn't be use
> > in the reverse t
Hi IPv6ers,
You might recall some time ago I stirred up some interest
in my Optimistic DAD draft, which seeks to eliminate DAD delay
without significantly increasing the risk involved in address
collision. In the meantime it's picked up a couple of independant
implementations[1] and a cou
Hi,
I didn't see the announcement for this draft so
please note the URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-soliman-ipv6-2461-bis-01.txt
There is still a few unresolved issues that I'll
summarise and send to the list. I hope we can
discuss this in Seoul.
Hesham
---
> > Just don't mention DNAME at all. Note DNAME support will
> > be manditory with DNSSEC so the only issue is whether we
> > discourage the use under IP6.ARPA which I (and lots of others
> > in dnsext) now believe we got wrong.
> >
> >"Those nodes are NOT RECOMMENDED to su
10 matches
Mail list logo
