[DNA] Landmark vs Link-ID prefix solution

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I have tried to pereceive implementation pain and advantage from both
Landmark and Link-ID views, and the complexity of the code and
extensions required.  I think this gets into the time vs. space issues
we faced looking at OSI ES-IS vs ARP when defining ND years ago, only a
much harder technical problem (I think its up there with SHIM6 work).  I
see similar positions and debates.  Most of the mail for me has not been
helpful to sway me one way or the other yet.  It has shown me neither is
complete yet. What I like about Landmark it is a pure extension to ND
for IPv6, but what I don't like nor can support at least right now is
modifying the current RA.  Doing that is not good and I would at least
like to see means to enhance or form new RA for particpating Landmark
hosts and routers.  What I like about the Link-ID is I believe it will
converge quickly for one of my hot buttons for mobility and that is mesh
networks (note not MANETs and I can get into the diff offline "only"
with others, per Greg's mail to keep the focus here).  I intend to do in
depth technical review of both and ask some folks I know out of the IETF
building mobile networks now for products with MIPv6 who want to be
anonymous to help me review it as ghost persons, and I am building some
to of course, so I have a bias clearly.  Possibly there is a compromise
and integration of ideas here.

What I empatically do not agree with is James K's statement that we
should stop work on Link-ID because it may use up a bit more time and
white paper space than Landmark.  That is not an engineering argument or
technical rationale, but false bravado at this point I will assume for
time-to-market reasons.  I agree with need to ship something, but this
is serious stuff, and unless Greg tells me we don't have more time I
assume we can get this right?

I am assuming on both sides of the architectures is that there is no IPR
from any company as authors on either of these solutions?  If there is
and I missed it in the specs, and I will check again, please speak up
now and tell us you have patents on what your proposing.  This has to
stop in the IETF and will probably kill CGA and other ideas that may
never get widely used in the market.  Most of us are quite sick of it
and I consider it dishonorable if not presented up front immediately.

/jim