-Original Message-
From: Andrew Yourtchenko [mailto:ayour...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:36 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: Samita Chakrabarti; nordm...@cisco.com; pthub...@cisco.com;
m...@lilacglade.org; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd review
Hi
...@lilacglade.org; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd review
Hi Andrew,
On 08/05/2013 06:51 AM, ayourtch wrote:
> The RS sending mechanism will be resilient, I assume, such that the
> node does get RA even in a high-loss environments, right ? Maybe
>
amita Chakrabarti; nordm...@cisco.com; pthub...@cisco.com;
m...@lilacglade.org
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd review
Hi,
I've read through the document, and the problem that it touches is indeed
*very* acute - I've experienced it every time in
Hi Suresh,
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 08/05/2013 06:51 AM, ayourtch wrote:
The RS sending mechanism will be resilient, I assume, such that the node
does get RA even in a high-loss environments, right ? Maybe useful to
include a paragraph or two on the unreliabi
Hi Andrew,
On 08/05/2013 06:51 AM, ayourtch wrote:
> The RS sending mechanism will be resilient, I assume, such that the node
> does get RA even in a high-loss environments, right ? Maybe useful to
> include a paragraph or two on the unreliability of this mechanism. I
> think Suresh said he had s
Hi,
I've read through the document, and the problem that it touches is indeed
*very* acute - I've experienced it every time in the large-scale wireless
deployments.
The below is a braindump written as I was reading the doc - I deliberately
left some of the pieces that might have been explain
