Subject: [DNA] DNA and TSLLAO

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:53:41 +1000

Dear WG,

Please be aware that there's some conflict of interest here
(being one of the authors of the document), so I'd like to
be guided by the WG's opinion.

I've been discussing the use of
Tentative Source Link-Layer Address Options (TSLLAO)s
with some of the people in the DT, and it seems that
there's some belief that TSLLAOs are useful for DNA.

I'd like to confirm if this is the case on the mailing list,
and if so, determine what to do with the existing draft.

The draft is: draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-01.txt

It's referenced from draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00.txt,
and is relied upon for delivery of unicast fast RAs to
Optimistic addresses.

There's an experimental implementation of the technology
available using RADVD, as well as a partial implementation
(doesn't use optimistic DAD) for an RS sender.

Do people think it would be useful for this technology to
be standardized?

If so, where should it go:

a) within the DNA solution

b) as a separate document within DNA

c) ask IPv6 (or another suggested WG) to work on it?

At this stage, discussion is encouraged, so that people
can devlop opinions over time.

If there's significant interest, though, I can tentatively
approach the IPv6 chairs for their (early) opinion too.

Please tell me what you think, and alternative ideas and
opinions are welcome.

Greg.

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:12:28 -0700

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 (like
802.16) need to be seen as exceptions, to be handled by extension RFCs (like
RFC 2491 does for ATM).

            jak

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)

DNAv4 has completed IETF last call and IESG review.  The issues that were
raised are available here:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNA/

A strawman version of DNAv4-13 addressing the comments is available here:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/DNA/draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-13.txt

Comments/additional issues to me.

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:07:52 +0200

Hi Greg,

I think TSLLAO is very useful and should be standardized.

Further, IMO TSLLAO should be standardized as a stand-alone document.
The reason is that TSLLAO can be useful even when the DNA protocol
itself is not implemented.  "Situation A" and "Situation B" in
draft-vogt-dna-relocation-00.txt are two examples.

Previous discussions on the IPv6 mailing list have shown that
optimizations like TSLLAO are not the kind of thing for which the IPv6
WG is the right place.  Folks have repeatedly refered to the DNA WG to
handle such optimizations.  (See, e.g., the thread starting at [1].)

- Christian

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05084.html

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:50:41 +0900

Dear Christian

> I think TSLLAO is very useful and should be standardized.

agree. 

> draft-vogt-dna-relocation-00.txt are two examples.

agree. 

> handle such optimizations.  (See, e.g., the thread starting at [1].)

I prefer TSALLAO to be advanced in IPv6 WG. But in case IPv6 WG 
is reluctant, I wish DNA WG handles it instead. 

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock