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

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

Hi Greg,

Once I know I have changed links at L2 and prefixes I had received I can
be pretty sure the RA is from a new link and if it is completely
different prefix. This would work for initial deployment too IMO.  My
fear is for years IETF has tried to define such IDs and have not been
successful or have been deployed well in the market when experimental.  

Other options are an ICMP message type to verify a new link or a new
router RA link advertisement for MNs only.

But if I were to look at IDs I would try to think about how AAA could be
used per link.

We should have the discussion for sure but with the caveat if we are
sitting here in 3 months and no good ID consensus is happening then use
that as hint it may be stalling us for forward progress.

Thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au 
> [mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of Greg Daley
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:25 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Brett Pentland; JinHyeock Choi; Erik Nordmark; 
> dna@eng.monash.edu.au; JinHyeock Choi
> Subject: Re: [DNA] [Announce] DNA solution framework I-D
> 
> 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.
> >>
> > 
> 
> 
>