RE: [DNA] Some questions about Simple DNA

[Bernard Aboba <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>]

Suresh said:

"The Router needs to be able to respond to this unicast NS packet. For 
this it requires the L2 address of the soliciting node. If the node 
includes an SLLAO, it might cause cache pollution if there is another 
node who is currently using the same address on the network. This is why 
we need the TSLLAO."

By definition, for a host to do DNAv6, it has already completed
duplicate address detection on the address.  Why should the host
be required to do (Optimistic) DAD ever time it awakes from sleep?
Given the duty cycles we are now seeing, this means that the host
will never obtain a usable address!

Suresh said:

"If we send out an RS with the unspecified source address, this will lead 
to the router sending a multicast RA to the all-nodes address. This 
might have an undesirable side effect of waking up dormant nodes. I do 
not have strong feelings about this, but others might."

Unless the RS is sent with the unspecified address, DNAv6 cannot meet its 
goal of being no worse than existing configuration schemes.  Since a host
choosing the "wrong" candidate address may not receive an RA, simple DNA
would very likely suffer a performance degradation compared with existing
schemes.