Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at kolumbus.fi>]

Francis Dupont wrote:

> So I really believe in the DAD usefulness and if you'd like to remove
> or "optimize" DAD on one of my networks my answer will be "NO!".
I believe the optimistic DAD folks are very keen on keeping the DAD
functional. That is, it is a requirement that networks and nodes must
be able to recover from a collision situation. No one is proposing
removing DAD.

Since most folks appear to agree that any optimization is not
a part of 2462bis and that Jinmei's option 1 is reasonable, I
think we can close the issue for 2462bis.

As for the rest, I believe we should discuss optimistic or optimized
DAD schemes under a different thread, since this really has nothing
to do with 2462bis. And for that discussion, let's not label someone's
method a priori as "removal". There may be specific concerns in the
specific methods, but if that's the case then they have to be
corrected or rejected.

--Jari


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