Re: [rfc2462bis issue 274] conflict between MLD and NS delay

[Fred Templin <osprey67 at yahoo.com>]

Jinmei,

 

Do you have a timeframe for when you will be posting RFC2462(bis)

to the I-D repository?

 

Thanks - Fred

osprey67@yahoo.com

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:02:54 -0500,
>>>>> Brian Haberman said:

> Given my point above, I would argue that we shouldn't add a delay to
> MLD messages.

So, do you have any opinion among the options I raised in this thread?

1. no change in rfc2462bis (expecting MLDv1 and/or MLDv2 will
eventually be updated with a random delay)
2. the original proposal of mine (expecting MLDv1 and/or MLDv2 will
eventually be updated with a random delay):
impose a random delay even for the first NS after the corresponding
MLD when the sending node knows there is no delay for the MLD.
3. Greg's suggestion:
require a random delay before the first MLD (in rfc2462bis).

(including "4. none of above").

Apparently you'd reject option 3 from your point. I also know that
you! are NOT expecting MLDv1/v2 will be updated with a random delay,
even if you prefer option 1 or 2 itself.

JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------