Thomas,
I think it is good to have this discussion of link quality
on the list to serve as a permanent (?) record for those
developers who might want to implement a default router
selection strategy based on factors not explicitly called
out in the spec. To your specific question:
Again,
Folks,
Please take a look at Bob's text below. I'd like to suggest that
we replace the current text in 2461bis with the one below.
Any objections? I'll wait for another week before I can conclude
that we agree on this, i.e. if no one responds.
Hesham
For example:
M :
At the risk of being accused of dragging out this discussion beyond the
10 year mark, I'm in favor of Bob's wording. I agree with his rationale
too.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:57 AM
To: Bob Hinden; IPv6
On Apr 20, 2006, at 5:11 PM, ext Thomas Narten wrote:
Yes, this is the passage I am concerned with. The point is
that (in some environments) not all routers on the link will
be equivalent, e.g., some routers may exhibit better QoS than
others due to different signal-to-noise ratios, queue
zou rong wrote:
I think using all-node multicast address is better than using
solicited-node multicast address in the DAD, because in some kinds of
implement, for example, the hardware chipset or NP process program will
filter some kind of multicast packet if they are not be said have join
the
I'm also happy with Bob's wording (but also with what Ralph and Thomas
produced).
Bob's wording also leaves it to the DHCPv6 specifications as to how to
do DHCPv6, which is far better than putting more specific details in
RFC2461bis.
But, again, I'm happy with either and do want to see this move
