RE: [DNA] Comments on draft-shim-dna-proactive-00.txt

[Zhigao Chen <zgchen@psl.com.sg>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@samsung.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: 'Zhigao Chen'
> Cc: 'Gregory Daley'; 'Bernard Aboba'; 'Eunsoo Shim'; 'S. 
> Daniel Park'; dna@eng.monash.edu.au
> Subject: RE: [DNA] Comments on draft-shim-dna-proactive-00.txt
> 
> 
> > 
> > I get your point after realizing that you make a 
> distinction between 
> > trigger and hint in your draft. The gain of doing reachability test 
> > (with unicast RS/RA) in the case of weak hint could be less 
> signaling 
> > overhead, especially in the downlink, and less disruption to 
> > routers/hosts. Consider that RS/RA exchange between hosts 
> and routers
> is
> > changed from one-multiple-multiple to one-one-one.
> 
> The RA sent would be unicasted when solicited. So, the 
> downlink traffic amount is the same. Uplink traffic would be 
Even if a solicited RA is unicasted, there are multiple RAs in the
downlink when there are several ARs on the link. The RAs from those ARs,
which are not the host's previous default AR, does not serve the
reachability test purpose, although the router information carried in
these RA might be used as back-up in case the reachability test fails.

> higher as it (RS) is multicasted. [though some deployments 
> may filter RS before it enters the radio link. Good for 
> security and bandwidth management]
> 
> Alper
> 
Yes, as I know that is the case in GPRS. However, hosts can get a strong
hint in GPRS due to the PPP link nature. Actually it doesn't need the
reachability test in the first place, I am afraid.

Regards,
Zhigao