From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Avoiding DAD doesn't sound like a good goal to me. It means that the
system _assumes_ that the rest of the world is perfect and never has
any problems.
Let me rephrase: making DAD more efficient. If there's a DHCP server
present that
: Re: Rethinking autoconfig,was Re: prefix length determination
for DHCPv6
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Avoiding DAD doesn't sound like a good goal to me. It means that
the
system _assumes_ that the rest of the world is perfect and never has
any problems.
Let me rephrase
On 21-aug-2007, at 13:02, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
And, there's always the case where the DHCP server has lost it memory
(i.e. disk) - in that case it would have no idea what was or was not
leased.
Yes, the server would have to tell nodes to do DAD until all the
leases from before the
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino writes:
ranti wonder how many of those who are voicing opinion here are
actually using IPv6 in a daily basis./rant
I am. Does that help?
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W
Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:26 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Markku Savela; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rethinking autoconfig, was Re: prefix length determination
for DHCPv6
On 21-aug-2007, at 13:02, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote
On 17-aug-2007, at 22:09, james woodyatt wrote:
To stop unnecessary DHCP traffic. [...]
I think what we're seeing here is a vocal faction of the community
who believe that DHCP discovery multicasts are always necessary,
whether RA is present or not, and whether M=0 or M=1, despite the
