Re: [DNA] DNA and TSLLAO

[Christian Vogt <chvogt@tm.uka.de>]

Hi Greg,

I think TSLLAO is very useful and should be standardized.

Further, IMO TSLLAO should be standardized as a stand-alone document.
The reason is that TSLLAO can be useful even when the DNA protocol
itself is not implemented.  "Situation A" and "Situation B" in
draft-vogt-dna-relocation-00.txt are two examples.

Previous discussions on the IPv6 mailing list have shown that
optimizations like TSLLAO are not the kind of thing for which the IPv6
WG is the right place.  Folks have repeatedly refered to the DNA WG to
handle such optimizations.  (See, e.g., the thread starting at [1].)

- Christian

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05084.html

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/



Greg Daley wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> Please be aware that there's some conflict of interest here
> (being one of the authors of the document), so I'd like to
> be guided by the WG's opinion.
>
> I've been discussing the use of
> Tentative Source Link-Layer Address Options (TSLLAO)s
> with some of the people in the DT, and it seems that
> there's some belief that TSLLAOs are useful for DNA.
>
> I'd like to confirm if this is the case on the mailing list,
> and if so, determine what to do with the existing draft.
>
> The draft is: draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-01.txt
>
> It's referenced from draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00.txt,
> and is relied upon for delivery of unicast fast RAs to
> Optimistic addresses.
>
> There's an experimental implementation of the technology
> available using RADVD, as well as a partial implementation
> (doesn't use optimistic DAD) for an RS sender.
>
> Do people think it would be useful for this technology to
> be standardized?
>
> If so, where should it go:
>
> a) within the DNA solution
>
> b) as a separate document within DNA
>
> c) ask IPv6 (or another suggested WG) to work on it?
>
> At this stage, discussion is encouraged, so that people
> can devlop opinions over time.
>
> If there's significant interest, though, I can tentatively
> approach the IPv6 chairs for their (early) opinion too.
>
> Please tell me what you think, and alternative ideas and
> opinions are welcome.
>
> Greg.

--------------enig8129792401C0B0CD5FDFEB92
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCwGqowstEk8gl2rURAklJAJ4gM8x2VQ6V5ZahEUG0yxVMHDgLowCgshUj
oQMqYhmJiUCcZ951hImBgtU=
=EhTd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig8129792401C0B0CD5FDFEB92--