Re: [DNA] No FastRA unless Landmark? (draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00)

[Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>]

James Kempf wrote:
>>The FastRA method should have been a seperate draft, unless we are going to 
>>have a single DNA solution.
>>
> 
> 
> Right, so what is planned on this? Is there going to be a discussion about
> whether more than one solution is needed? Whether people want more than one?
> Currently, I believe we have two.

I assume the desired result is that we end up with one overall solution 
to implement in hosts and routers, and not N different schemes, because 
that doesn't help with interoperability.

However, in the overall solution I think the hosts this needs to have 
the ability to handle unmodified routers (for which we have CPL as the 
core piece on the table) and do something more efficient ("the 
solution") when the routers do the new DNA thing.

   Erik