Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA and TSLLAO

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:27:21 +1000

Hi James, 

Not trying to preempt the rest of the discussion, but 
asking a clarifying question:

----- Original Message -----
From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:12 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA and TSLLAO
> I think TSLLAO needs to be folded into the DNA document. I think 
> we should maintain the tradition of defining enhancements to ND
> based on a link techology with a host MAC address that was
> started by 2461, and therefore in the general case the router will
> need the TSLLAO in order to unicast the RA back to host.  Other
> link layer types or corner-case uses of 802 link
> technologies that don't support MAC addresses on the wireless link 
> (like802.16) need to be seen as exceptions, to be handled by 
> extension RFCs (like RFC 2491 does for ATM).

Just clarifying: if TSLLAO was folded into DNA, then I guess
we'd only need the part with RS from an Optimistic address
(the part I've already implemented ;-) ,
without NS or Directed Multicast?

Greg

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:58:29 -0700

Hi Greg,

> without NS or Directed Multicast?

I think we could fold the NS usage into DNA too, since testing for
bidirectional reachability could arguably be part of detecting attachment
(if you suspect you've lost attachment, this is one way you might want to
check). Alternatively, one could view the DNA RS/RA as another way to do
attachment checking, and therefore that NS/NA checking isn't necessary, in
which case the NS could be dropped.

With regard to Directed Multicast, I'm not sure I see a general use for
this, can you give some examples? Typically multicast is used when the IP
address is undefined.

            jak

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:13:33 +1000

Hi James,

> which case the NS could be dropped.

OK, That sounds reasonable.  The document's structure's pretty logical
due to work by Erik, so it's easy to see where changes would have to be
made in either case.

> this, can you give some examples? Typically multicast is used when the IP

Yes.  I was wondering if a host may use TSLLAO even though it doesn't
have a full Optimistic DAD implementation.  In that case, unspecified
source addresses would be necessary.

Whether it's worthwhile designing in things for hosts which can
implement one protocol and not another may be debatable though.

Greg