Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA solution framework I-D

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

Hi Jim,

Bound, Jim wrote:
> Greg, 
> 
> Sounds fair.  ACK on all comments.  One other nit.  I would optimize for
> IPv6 and do what you need to do for IPv4.  IPv6 ND/stateless and MIPv6
> have advantages that IPv4 will never have so lets not bring IPv6 to IPv4
> but let each evolve to its own capabilities.  That is completely fair to
> under the new IESG guidelines for work on IPv6.  IF IPv6 has advantages
> to us we should use them.

My example from DNAv4 was primarily to illustrate that
we'll probably be (happily) stuck with ND for most
of our work.

I think we'd probably co-operate with DHCWG if there's further
work to be done on DNAv4 or IPv4 extensions (since that's
where most of the host autoconfiguration expertise for IPv4's now
residing).

If there's a need to support devices in a multi-technology
Internetwork (v6 and v4) then we'll head down that path.

My personal opinion is that there are clear advantages afforded
by IPv6 in this area (SEND being one of the keys),
and we should spend most of our time building based on the best
possible technology, if we can do it without building air-castles.

Greg