[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Avoiding interface failure upon DAD failure

To: "'Mika Liljeberg'" <mika.liljeberg@xxxxxxxxx>, Hesham Soliman <H.Soliman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Avoiding interface failure upon DAD failure
From: Hesham Soliman <H.Soliman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:58:13 -0400
Cc: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ipng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 26 May 2003 19:10:26 +0300
Envelope-to: archive@lists.atm.tut.fi
Sender: owner-ipng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


 > > The point is, should 3041 be used to generate CoAs
 > > or not?
 > 
 > If it doesn't perceivably improve the total failure rate 
 > observed by the
 > user, no.

=> Ok. So do you think that RFC 3041 should be used
at all? I mean, do you say "no" for the MIPv6 spec 
only or for any address?

Hesham
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Avoiding interface failure upon DAD failure
  - From: Mika Liljeberg

Prev by Date: Re: Draft on Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses
Next by Date: Re: Draft on Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses
Previous by thread: Re: Avoiding interface failure upon DAD failure
Next by thread: RE: Avoiding interface failure upon DAD failure
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread