Subject: RE: MIPv6 and ND value changes

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:37:05 -0500

Erik,

What you bring up hard rate limit vs token bucket filter and the like
are optimizations not brokeness in MIPv6 and so is the idea of a
separate spec.  We can always optimize and continue to optimize etc.
Leaving it in the current spec does not remove the potential for
optimization.  Taking it out may cause MIPv6 to not ship.  I am for
shipping unless there is a well known interoeperable problem.  Lets be
consistent on the rules and not make them up all the time as we go it is
impossible to expect us the worker bees to keep up with moving targets.
Ship the spec.

/jim
[Honor, Commitment, Integrity]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:07 AM
> To: Charlie Perkins
> Cc: Erik Nordmark; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: MIPv6 and ND value changes
> 
> 
> > I am particularly concerned that we have a Mobile IPv6 
> specification 
> > that, when implemented, gives sensible results.  Eliminating the 
> > possibility for having faster router advertisements does not give 
> > sensible results.
> 
> I don't want to eliminate it - I want to make it better.
> But the fear of trying to make it better will further delay the MIPv6 
> specification makes me not want to bring up those issues.
> 
>    Erik
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:33:22 +0100 (CET)

> optimization. 

Doing local optimizations to a specification which is 150 pages might be
possible yet it is painful.

> Taking it out may cause MIPv6 to not ship.  

Making the RFC not ship? Or making something else not ship?
The spec would not have a problem shipping without the 2-3 pages we are
talking about.

And getting better ND support (or other movement detection/handover tweaks)
is something that I think makes sense to do relatively quickly (as in
the next few months). Having it be in the gigantic spec makes this utterly
hard.

  Erik