Re: [DNA] draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02 is for unmodified routers. Actual DNAv6 draft
> can be found at

Yes, I understand this. My previous note was entirely within the
specific context of receiving an RA (that contained a prefix we didn't
know about) and how to handle that case.

BTW, I think it is useful to divide the problem space up three ways:

1) host recommendations for interacting with non-upgraded routers
   (i.e., those implementing 2461/2462)

2) hosts/routers that can BOTH be upgraded with DNA extensions (the
   protocol3 document)

3) changes to routers that would benefit unmodified hosts. (also
   contained in protocol3). I view this third category as "fixes" to
   2461/2462 that all routers should do and as small improvements on
   2461/2462.

while it may be OK to tackle cases 2&3 in the same document, I think
it would be good to make it more clear that case 3 is something we
want all routers to implement, and not just "if they want to support
DNA".

> In most cases if the RA contains all the prefixes, the receipt of first
> RA is sufficient to check for link change.

Right. And since I expect this case to be common, its not at all clear
to me that we need to make the DNA algorith more complicated to deal
with cases that are not expected to happen much in practice.

Thomas