Re: [DNA-BOF] Detecting Network Attachment BoF description (rev 2)

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Jari,

I think that We'll have to put it in.
I've been talking to some people about this
issue (with DAD optimization especially), and
we agree that it should be discussed.

My initial view was a little more close minded.
I still think that the Agenda should cover it under
scope/issues though, since the role of this
work is not clear.

Is there other IPv6 work to be discussed?

I'll make the updates to the description + Agenda now.

Greg.

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Gregory Daley wrote:
> 
>>   * Describe existing issues encountered in DHC,
>>     ZEROCONF and Mobileip WGs, which could benefit
>>     from work on detecting network attachment. 
> 
> 
> I'm fine with the rest of your BoF description, but
> I still don't understand why IPv6 is excluded from the
> list above. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but
> I would think there are movement detection issues and
> benefits of detecting movement regardless of whether we
> run stateless or stateful address autoconfig in v6.
> 
> --Jari
> 
>