Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA solution framework I-D

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Jim,

Bound, Jim wrote:
> The odds of us getting wide agreement on an id of this nature is NULL
> IMO.
> /jim 


While you may be right, there is potentially
a problem in building sufficient prefix state
to uniquely identify whether or not a
received router advertisement comes from
the currently configured link or not.

The 'complete prefix list' document could be
optimized to the point where it is able
to provide such prefix set information
quickly, but it may be good to have a
simple "am I still on link Z?" mechanism.

Lets' see if there's anything which can be
created which has non-NULL probability.
I'm especially interested in seeing if there's
a good way of getting around this issue, which
has some chance of getting delivered.

That may not be Link IDs, though.

Greg

> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au 
>>[mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
>>Brett Pentland
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:00 PM
>>To: Brett Pentland
>>Cc: JinHyeock Choi; Erik Nordmark; dna@eng.monash.edu.au; 
>>JinHyeock Choi
>>Subject: Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA solution framework I-D
>>
>>
>>>sufficient for this purpose and is simple.  Assigning a truely 
>>>globally unique identifier would require some kind of registry or 
>>>central control.  I don't think you would do this "for 
>>
>>simplicity's sake".
>>
>>Oops.  I guess address prefixes could be used to come up with 
>>a globally unique link identfiers.  Brain not working properly.  :)
>>
>>I still think that a random identfier is sufficient and very simple.
>>
>>Brett.
>>
>