Re: [DNA] Issue about multiply connected to the same link and DNAbeing per-interface or not (was Re: WG LC comments ondraft-ietf-dna-goals-01.txt)

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>]

IMO, DNA needs to be per interface. and ofcourse information could
be shared between interfaces.

Vijay

Pekka Nikander wrote:
>> We are in a disagreement.
> 
> 
> Somewhat, yes.  But I don't think the disagreement is that bad.  :-)
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>    DNA scheme is run per interface because some IP configuration, such
>>>>    as IPv6 address, is interface specific.  When a host has multiple
>>>>    interfaces, each interface separately check for link change to
>>>> verify
>>>>    each one's IP configuration.
>>>
>>>
>>> As I wrote above, I don't agree with this.  I think this is unnecessary
>>> in the goals document.  I don't think we should include it.
>>> OTOH, if other's in the WG think otherwise, I won't insist.
>>
>>
>> Let me summarize my thoughts.
>>
>> In case there are multiple interfaces in a host, each interface should
>> separately detect the identity of the currently attached link for itself.
>>
>> Do you disagree with this? If so, we are in a serious disagreement
>> and would better find a way to resolve this.
> 
> 
> Well, I don't really disagree with you at that point.  However,
> IMHO we would needlessly limit ourselves if we, in the goals
> document, state that DNA schemes are (always) run per interface.
> I would easily agree that they are "typically" or even "almost
> always" run per interface.  However, there are cases where that
> may not hold.  Hence my concern.
> 
> But I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
> 
> --Pekka
>