Re: [DNA-BOF] Quick thought experiment on DAD Optimization and DNA

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

Hi Daniel,

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> Hello DNA
> 
> We already saw that kind of reaction in various WG
> (mobileip, IPv6 besides DNA BoF...) It still be in a
> vicious circle for a long time.

I was not trying to get rid of DAD Optimizations for IPv6.
I am a firm believer that this needs to be standardized
properly and quickly.

> I think it should be discussed in this group and this
> job is not tightly related 2462-bis and current list
> of main issues in 2462-bis do not include IPv6
> DAD Optimization.

You're definitely right that the 2462-bis work is not
optimization work, it is cleaning-up work (the document
is a DS, and cannot have substantive changes without
being recycled to PS [maybe my view of the process is
incorrect though]).

The question was prompted by an idea that the work
may be related to work which is being undertaken elsewhere
but I was not aiming at merging any documents.

How tightly the work is related to other work
(inside and outside this group) is currently worth
discussing.

> The main goal of these works are ONLY targeted to
> the detecting network attachment as soon as possible.
> Incorrect ?

The main goal of DNAv4/v6 is to detect network attachment
quickly, but I wouldn't necessarily say the same of
DAD optimization schemes.

For example, DNA seems to be a detection rather than a
configuration system.  DAD has an operational role
in creating addresses.  It has been argued before that
DAD Optimizations are applicable to all types of
hosts, not just wireless ones.

Obviously DAD optimization mechanisms will give big
advantages to DNAv6, and cause further interactions
(for example if using Optimistic DAD).
So, obviously there is an interest in that work here.

We won't drop this work.

If there's an offer to place this in another
forum though, would it make sense to put it there?

Greg