Re: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNAprotocol

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>]

Hi Bernard,
   Please see my responses inline

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> The combination of same link local address *and* MAC address is 
> unlikely, assuming that the MAC address is globally unique.  However, 
> not all link layers will have a globally unique MAC address, so that 
> there may be a need to restrict applicability to those that do.

I will add some text in the assumptions and mention the pitfalls if this 
does not hold true.

> 
>> The heuristic in use for simple dna is to store and use the previous 
>> 'n' link configurations. Thus it satisfies (a). It we use a 
>> sufficiently large value of 'n' we can ensure that (b) is met. We 
>> recommend n to be 2 but if you think that the number is too low we can 
>> increase it.
> 
> A previous link configuration should only be tried if it is still 
> corresponds to a valid address.  Otherwise, confirming presence of the 
> corresponding router could result in installation of a configuration 
> which is no longer valid, which would create a false positive. In 
> practice this will restrict the DNAv6 traffic substantially so I'm not 
> clear that it is necessary to recommend a value of "n".

The following text in Section 3.4 already sets this as a restriction

"If the addresses obtained from a previous router are no longer valid, 
the host SHOULD NOT send a Neighbour Solicitation to that router."

Does this convey what you want or Would you like some stronger text?

Thanks
Suresh