Re: [DNA] Couple of points on draft-jinchoi-dna-soln-frame-00.txt

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

Hi Alper,

Alper Yegin wrote:
>>In case that a host finds out that it is attached to the same link to
>>which
>>it was attached a few minutes ago, the followings need to be
> 
> clarified.
> 
>> - that the router lifetime should be honored
>> - that the prefix lifetimes should be honored
>> - that NUD would probably happen since the NCE is probably stale
>> - it may or may not be important to redo DAD
> 
> 
> I think we should try to be more concrete on the last item. 
> 
> Alper 
> 

I agree.

In section 7.1 of draft-narayanan-dna-bcp-00.txt I wrote:

"...In the case that the host arrives back on the same link in time less
    than the DAD completion time (minus a packet transmission and
    propagation time), the host MAY reclaim the address by sending
    Neighbor Advertisement messages as if another host had attempted DAD
    while the host was away.  This will prevent DAD completion by another
    node upon NA reception.

    If a host has not been present on a link to defend its address, and
    has been absent for a full DAD delay (minus transmission time) the
    host MUST undertake the full DAD procedure for each address from that
    link it wishes to configure [3]."


I think that this sort of operation is reasonable but will take any
comments.

Of course, I was writing for current practice, and wasn't relying on
Optimistic DAD.  For the solution framework, I'd suggest doing Opti-DAD.

Greg