Re: [DNA] Some questions about Simple DNA

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

Hi Bernard,
   Thanks for the comments. Please see responses inline.

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 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!

This is to deal with another host picking up the same address after the 
host went to sleep/left the link. The new host thinks that its address 
is unique while in fact it is not. I do not see any other way around this.

> 
> 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. 

I see your point and I agree with you. I will make this change to 
version -01 of the draft.

Thanks
Suresh