Re: [dna] #9: Detailed description of ND packets

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

Hi Bernard,

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> There is an issue in Section 4.5.1.  This section should also describe the
> link layer addresses in the NS packet, to make clear that the NS is
> sent to the previously cached link layer address of the router (NOT to
> a multicast address).  

Will do.

> 
> "   The probing node SHOULD NOT include a Source link-layer address
>    option if it has not performed duplicate address detection [RFC4862],
>    for the source address of the NS, on the newly attached link."
> 
> In DNAv4 (RFC 4436), the goal was not only to detect network attachment, but
> also to establish bi-directional reachability.  By not including the Source
> link-layer address, Simple DNA does not achieve this goal. 

I think this comes back to the issue on when DAD is required. I do
understand your point, but I still see an issue with putting the SLLAO
in the packet when we are not reasonably sure that the address is not
duplicated. From your mail, I see that you consider the chance of
the address being taken by some other node as very low. I do not know
how to quantify this in text. If I can quantify when DAD is not
required, I think it will be very straight forward to address your 
concern. Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks
Suresh

_______________________________________________
dna mailing list
dna@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna