for folks information.
> draft-pettland already contains something to
> speed up the RA. It doesn't have to be a
> separate WG item.
Agreed.
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00.txt
3.3 Fast Router Advertisment
According to RFC 2461 a solicited Router Advert
7;" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; "'JINMEI
Tatuya / '" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'James Kempf'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Brett Pentland'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Mohamed Khalil'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Daniel,
None of the solutions has been accepted yet as a WG item.
The DNA goals draft (in RFC-ed queue) covers this issue,
and has a goal for fast reception of information (essentially RAs).
The RA delay issue is discussed in section 2.1 of 'dna-goals'
and is summarized in Goal: G2.
The cur
Just clarifying.
> We'll be interested in IPv6 WG members' feedback on the solution
> which is adopted as a DNA WG draft.
>
> So I request that the issue be removed from the 2461bis issue
> tracker list.
Greg, are you saying that the FastRA was already accepted
as DNA WG item ? I didn't include
Hi Hesham,
(Cc: FastRA authors)
Daniel Park wrote:
So, to avoid the confusion, I'd like to ask the WG whether they agree that this
issue, addressed in draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-04 (or later versions) should not
be included in the current work of 2461bis.
It seems DNA task in my opinion, t
>So, to avoid the confusion, I'd like to ask the WG whether they agree that
>this
>issue, addressed in draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-04 (or later versions) should
>not
>be included in the current work of 2461bis.
It seems DNA task in my opinion, thus I support #2 to be removed from 2461bis.
Jinmei, thanks for catching this.
For those not familiar with the issue. There were two issues regarding
the RA improvement:
1. Relaxing the requirements on inter-RA intervals. This issue was raised by
MIPv6.
2. Eliminating random delays before sending RAs.Also a request gener
