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

[SUBBA REDDYKOTA <subbareddy@samsung.com>]

Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle

Hi Greg,

I am in favor of adopting draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-02.txt as WG document.

Thanks & Regards,

Subba Reddy

------- Original Message -------
Sender : Greg Daley<greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
Date   : Nov 19, 2005 04:24
Title  : [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