![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Hello, I have been following the comments but keep in mind that when NAR performs DAD to verify whether it can defend an NCoA or not, that would imply that HAck will be sent after a DAD delay, which would further delay FBAck delivery to MN, which will further increase the probability of a MN to undergo Reactive handover (depending on the speed). In my suggestion, instead of performing DAD as per the DAD rules, let the NAR check for a duplicate address in its neighbor cache, and if not found, it can defend the NCoA. This search of Neighbor Cache will spend less time and will serve the purpose and will also reduce the signaling load due to NS/NA excahnge. I have already presented an efficient mechanism in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-yousaf-ietf-mipshop-pbfmipv6-00.txt Regards Faqir Zarrar Yousaf
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". Check it out. |
_______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop at ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop