Re: [DNA-BOF] Re: [mobile-ip] Announce: BoF Proposal: DetectingNetwork Attachment

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi>]

Greg Daley wrote:

>>> * Describe existing issues encountered in DHC, ZEROCONF
>>>   and Mobileip WGs, which could benefit from work on
>>>   detecting network attachment.
>>
>> Hmm... I don't see IPv6 WG mentioned above. Does this imply that
>> movement issues related to stateless autoconfiguration are
>> out of scope, but stateful autoconfiguration is in?
> 
> I think that I was aiming at groups for which this is
> strictly on-topic for a first advertisement (once again
> aimed at the idea that the issue is not the actual
> configuration, rather the assessment that config is required).

(My question relates more to the scope of the work
than the groups who got the advertisement for the
BoF.)

I agree that the group should avoid looking at
the configuration task itself. But still, aren't DHCPv4,
DHCPv6, ZEROCONF, and ND all about configuration? Why
is ND any different in this respect, particularly
considering that ZEROCONF appears to do exactly what
stateless addresss autoconfiguration does in ND. (I
have to confess this is more or less my first exposure
to ZEROCONF, so I'm probably missing something.)

In practical terms, if you detect that you have
moved, you'll have to redo DHCPv4 if you were doing
that, redo ND stateless autoconfig and DAD if you were
doing that, redo ZEROCONF if you were doing that, etc.
In fact, you might have been doing DHCPv4 and now you
have to go for ND-only. Or you might have been doing
ND+DHCPv6 and now you have to do ND without DHCPv6.
Also, the ND case is interesting in the sense that
since it is not a single monolithic thing like DHCPv4,
we might have to redo only parts of it.

--Jari