Re: [DNA] Best current practice for DNA

[Syam Madanapalli <syam@samsung.com>]

Hi Greg,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Daley" <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
To: "Syam Madanapalli" <syam@samsung.com>
Cc: <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>; "Youn-Hee Han" <yh21.han@samsung.com>;
"JinHyeock Choi" <athene@sait.samsung.co.kr>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Best current practice for DNA


> Hi Syam,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Syam Madanapalli <syam@samsung.com>
> Date: Monday, March 1, 2004 4:29 am
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Best current practice for DNA
>
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > How about "Movement Detections" that are in use currently and their
> > evaluation,
> > that we have mentioned in the following document for BCP?
> >
> > http://www.thinkonweb.com/sait/MD.pdf
>
>
> This looks like a good starting point for the
> analysis (at least in checking Router reachability).

As of now I think most of the people use Router
Reachability check for detecting that it has moved.

>
> I guess that there may be some differing circumstances
> depending on the address state for DAD, though
> For example, (non DAD) NS's while still in tentative state may
> be difficult.

  This is true. Currently we use the existing LLA (Link Local Address).
So I am wondering what if we do DAD for Router Address to check
its reachability. If the router reachable (we did not move), the Router
will defend by sending DAD NA.

>
> If we believe that some of these ideas aren't
> generally applicable, or have inappropriate features
> we can reduce the solutions to the 'best current'.

We talked to the people in ETSI IPv6 IOP in Brussels
last year; based on this we have developed these MD
Schemes and evaluated. Probably we can collect more
information on the mailing list and try to modify this document.

>
> Of course, we're looking at non-Mobile IP solutions,
> rather than movement detection, although mipv6
> is a document we can draw on for current practice.
>
> Greg
>
>
>