On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:52:28 +1100,
Nick 'Sharkey' Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On 2004-02-23, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Hi IPv6ers,
You might recall some time ago I stirred up some interest
in my Optimistic DAD draft, [...]
i don't think it necessary to raise this discussion again.
IIRC it was not accepted with sane reason.
Previously,
On 2004-02-23, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
Nick 'Sharkey' Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You might recall some time ago I stirred up some interest
in my Optimistic DAD draft, [...]
Please let me know what you think ... and if there's enough
interest maybe we can
Here are comments on draft-moore-ipv6-optimistic-dad-04.txt. I have
one relatively-substantial comment and several editorial ones.
The relatively-substantial comment is:
I don't see the strong need for the unsolicited neighbor
advertisements described in Section 3.1:
* (adds to 7.2.6) The
Title: Re: Optimistic DAD _again!_
One fundamental question that I remember is whether optimizing DAD
really makes much sense while there are other kinds of delays such as
random delay (up to 1 second) for the first RS and random delay at
routers before responding to an RS. Without
Since we have a discussion about optimistic DAD, this is probably a
good chance to start a related discussion for rfc2462bis.
As you know, there have been many discussions on DAD, including
- whether omitting/optimizing DAD is a good idea
- (if yes) in which case we can omit DAD
- DAD vs DIID
-
This is almost an editorial fix, and the change
was included in the latest I-D.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
