Re: [DNA] DNA and TSLLAO

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

Hi James, 

Not trying to preempt the rest of the discussion, but 
asking a clarifying question:

----- Original Message -----
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:12 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA and TSLLAO
> I think TSLLAO needs to be folded into the DNA document. I think 
> we should maintain the tradition of defining enhancements to ND
> based on a link techology with a host MAC address that was
> started by 2461, and therefore in the general case the router will
> need the TSLLAO in order to unicast the RA back to host.  Other
> link layer types or corner-case uses of 802 link
> technologies that don't support MAC addresses on the wireless link 
> (like802.16) need to be seen as exceptions, to be handled by 
> extension RFCs (like RFC 2491 does for ATM).

Just clarifying: if TSLLAO was folded into DNA, then I guess
we'd only need the part with RS from an Optimistic address
(the part I've already implemented ;-) ,
without NS or Directed Multicast?

Greg