Re: draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd

Hi Marius,

Thanks for your comments. I had been reluctant to expand the scope beyond
that described by RFC6583, at least partially to keep the document focused
and perhaps to help expedite the document's publication.

A question I have though ... what performance benchmarks would there be for
DAD or NUD? One of the challenges we've had regarding
draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd is to confirm that the tests are reporting
performance and not compliance ...

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Marius Georgescu <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I think this draft is a very good initiative and I support its adoption. I
> also have a question/comment.
>
> I understand that the draft is targeting the ND resilience problems
> described by RFC6583. However, I was wondering if it wouldn’t be beneficial
> to add benchmarking tests that can cover the performance of some other
> functions of ND devices (as presented in RFC4861), such as: Duplicate
> Address Detection (may be very useful for mobile IPv6) or Neighbor
> Unreachability Detection.
>
> Best regards,
> Marius Georgescu
>
> On Mar 1, 2015, at 5:55, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Bill and Ron,
> >
> > I made some time to read your latest update on a plane ride.
> > This draft seems to have a few areas for further
> > development, but otherwise in very good shape.
> >
> > I attach my comments,
> > Al
> > (as a participant)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> <draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-06review.txt>_______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
>

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg