RE: [DNA] Re: RS/RA Exchange

[Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > > I think you want to put any additional information in packets that
 > > are only sent between the routers. The RAs are sent to 
 > all-nodes hence
 > > the hosts will see all these added bytes which they don't 
 > derive any use from.
 > 
 > There's some ideas here which may have parallels with VRRP.
 > (private - routers only signalling, effects on router
 > discovery/forwarding).
 > 
 > Personally, I think that the lack of security in VRRP is the
 > killer for using this technology in DNA.  It may be trivial
 > on a wireless link to become the [fastest responder, VRRP master].

=> But the routers don't have to talk VRRP over the wireless
link. Surely they can do that on the wired side.

Hesham

 > 
 > I'd guess that even if we're only sending to routers, it's
 > best to used router discovery with SEND.  The delegation
 > mechanisms in SEND have at least some chance of implying
 > right to route.
 > 
 > I've been playing around with this sort of signalling
 > for another purpose where router ordering is important.
 > After discussions with Brett here, I guess the
 > best mechanism is to explicitly indicate interest or
 > membership in an ordered set of devices (possibly
 > communicating that they have a particular idea of the set),
 > and devices agreeing on a nominal order between themselves.
 > 
 > Depending on the application (RA response ordering, link
 > identification, etc), there may be different requirements.
 > I'm trying to look at a subset of these to see if there's
 > common ground.
 > 
 > There are still problems in any wireless environment
 > with VRRP or router-to-router discovery when L2 switches treat
 > multicast like broadcast since the configuration packets
 > will all travel onto the constrained wireless link, but at
 > least hosts don't have to wake up to process the packets on
 > the wireless link.
 > 
 > Greg
 >