Subject: Re: Optimistic DAD _again!_

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:45:16 +0900

>>>>> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:03:15 +0200, 
>>>>> Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> said:

> Most or maybe even all of these aspects are being worked by different
> groups. For instance,

(snip)

> Does this count as a "comprehensive scenario" you were looking
> for?

I think so, thanks for the list.

In the optimistic DAD slot on Tuesday, I want to see this kind of big
picture, and how each of them is going to be addressed with
consideration for effects to existing/future non-mobility nodes.

BTW: to make my position clear, I do not object to the proposed
optimistic DAD per se.  I'm personally not so interested in
eliminating the handoff delay, but my impression on the optimistic DAD
draft (after reading it) is that it is very carefully trying to
minimize the effect to non-mobility nodes.  So, I agree that this can
be a reasonable compromise.

My point is that if we need to introduce an optimization on this I'd
like to be sure this is a part of a reasonable big picture.  This is
because otherwise we'd just introduce additional complexity, even if
it is only implemented in mobile nodes, as an incomplete solution (wrt
"the big picture").

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------