Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-lineid-05.txt> (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ran,

On 06/07/2012 12:18 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> One (non-blocking) side comment to the discussion (contained
> within "draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful") that IPv6 RS messages 
> are specified at present to avoid repetitive RS messages after 
> a host's initial (re)initialisation period might be worth repeating.
> 
> On low bandwidth links (e.g. many commonly used radio links), 
> it is very important to keep the ND traffic low, so that the 
> link capacity can be used for actual user/data traffic.  
> 
> While it is great that some very recent IEEE 802.11 specifications 
> enable higher link capacity wireless LAN segments, there remain 
> many existing radio link technologies that are unlikely ever
> to have higher link capacity.  First-responder radios are especially 
> likely to have significantly constrained link capacity, for example.

While I fully agree with you, I am not sure how this applies to the
lineid draft. Is there some specific change you would like to see in the
draft?

Thanks
Suresh