RE: [DNA] Reality Check - Implementer Feedback

[Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

FWIW, I'd vote for (c).  DNAv6 is by nature an optimization, and the first 
rule of optimization is "optimize for the common case".  As a result, it 
doesn't make much sense to pay a great deal of attention to corner cases.  
The goal should be to guarantee that DNAv6 will do no harm in corner cases, 
and will provide meaningful optimization for common cases.  The most 
meaningful common case is where IPv6 routers are deployed as is, with no 
changes.


>From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
>To: Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>, dna-ads@tools.ietf.org
>Subject: [DNA] Reality Check - Implementer Feedback
>Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:57:58 -0400
>
>Hi Folks,
>   We have heard comments from OS vendors that the dna protocol, as it
>exists, is too complex to implement. We already have one instance of an
>OS vendor (Apple) who has shipped their own version of DNAv6 (it is
>pretty much a version of DNAv4 adapted to IPv6). From talking to the
>people who had the complexity concerns, the chairs have inferred that
>the following issues with the current document are the main obstacles to
>deployment
>
>* Router changes are NECESSARY
>* Handling of corner cases adds complexity to most likely use cases
>* Some of the DNA Goals are not really necessary/useful
>
>We have a couple of options going forward
>
>a) Forward the current document to the IESG on the standardization path
>with no hope of deployment
>b) Simplify the current document
>    - remove some of the DNA steps
>    - spin off Tentative options to a separate document
>    and then put it on the standardization path, and again risk lack of
>    deploymen
>c) Come up with a much simpler scheme which is probabilistic but works
>    decently given a set of assumptions(however limited they may be).
>    Then send it up on the standards track. This has the highest
>    probability of deployment.
>d) Do both b) and c)
>
>We would like to hear the opinions of the WG on these options.
>
>Cheers
>Suresh & Greg
>
>