RE: [DNA] Consensus call for adoption of TSLLAO as a working group item

[Mohan.Parthasarathy@nokia.com]

This should be accepted as a WG item.

-mohan
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au 
>[mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
>ext Greg Daley
>Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:25 AM
>To: dna@eng.monash.edu.au
>Subject: [DNA] Consensus call for adoption of TSLLAO as a 
>working group item
>
>
>Hi,
>
>This is the start of a two week consensus call as to whether 
>Tentative Source Link-Layer Address Options should be adopted 
>as a working group item in DNA WG.
>
>These are currently documented in: draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-02.txt
>
>While there was some interest in this at the IETF64 session, 
>the chairs recognize that few people had prepared to discuss 
>this document before the session.
>
>Any feedback or queries about this consensus call can be sent 
>to the chairs.
>
>The consensus call will end 12:01am Saturday 3rd December UTC
>
>The document can be found at:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-02.txt
>
>Here's a (quick) summary of the discussion from the minutes 
>(from JAK, with some recollections added by GD.  Further 
>merged minutes will be available shortly).
>---------
>...
>
>Suresh
>TSLLAO
>
>Normatively referenced by two documents, which are WG docs
>
>IPv6 chairs want this done in DNA cause IPv6 WG is going into 
>hibernation
>
>Greg will present
>(briefly summarizes draft)
>
>Problem with SLLAO is that it overrides NC entry, would like 
>to get unicast back to an optimistic address
>
>TSLLAO does not destroy NC entry
>
>Implementation in Linux available from Greg
>
>Suresh
>RS can't be unicast without optoin, need to do NS. Necessary 
>to have this done, IANA allocation
>
>Mohan
>Solution all you need is Mac address for repsonse for RA, 
>create NC entry for packet. Optimistic DAD is written such 
>that create an NC entry if you don't have it.
>
>Greg
>Can send unicast packet back without a Neighbour Cache entry.
>
>Mohan
>Does create entry if no entry is there?
>
>Greg
>With oDAD, small chance of collision, if there's a collision, 
>we want operations to be safe for original address owner, 
>advantage if temporary, won't create or modify an entry (GD: 
>if an entry exists). MAC binding will be delivered to another 
>destiantion if there is another NC entry.
>
>Suresh
>WG item - 8 hands
>none against
>
>confirm on the list.
>
>Greg
>Know it's a late agenda item, not trying to shove something through.
>
>Suresh
>Should this be in a separate document? 5 hands for Part of 
>solution document? 2
>
>confirm on list
>
>(discussion of whether separate or same)
>
>---------
>
>
>
>Please be aware that if adopted, further discussion on whether 
>the document should stand-alone or be merged into an existing 
>document will occur, with another consensus call.
>
>Please send comments to the list.
>
>Greg
>