Re: [DNA] Re: Comments on draft-jinchoi-dna-cpl-00.txt

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>]

Dear Samita

> Sincerely sorry for the late response and long absence in this list.

Don't mention it. But if that bothers you so much, in a few lines 
above at this mailing list, there are three of my mails for which 
your responses will be in perfect timing and your presence will 
be very much appreciated. (Hint, hint. :-)). 

> Please see my comments below.
> 
> > >  A slightly alternate proposal that Hari and I have been discussing with the
> > >  authors :
> > >     
> > >    On a new link initially:
> > >    
> > >   - MN link up - does send RS
> > >   - receives RAs 
> > >   - builds prefix and corresponding IPv6 link-local address of the router
> > >   - caches the information with periodic updates
> > >   
> > >    MN moves to a different link
> > >    - receives link up for wireless link, for wired it may be optional
> > >    - sends RS and receives RAs [ to make it more efficient, it might
> > >      be useful to send unicast router soliciation ]
> > >    - compares the prefix and the corresponding Ipv6 link-local address
> > >      of the router match with the cached information.
> > >      if any one response matches with the any pair in the cache - it
> > >      is still on-link (Link-local-addr confirms the link, prefix confirms
> > >      the uniqueness of the link)
> > >    - if the set is disjoint it has moved.
> > 
> > I am afraid the above results in incorrect detection. 
> > 
> > Assume a router has two interfaces attached to two different links. Also 
> > suppose two interfaces advertise two different prefixes but have the same link 
> > local address. Then if a host adopt the above scheme, it would not detect link 
> > change when it moves from one link to another. 
> 
> As per the above proposal, it compares the old-prefix  && link-local address
> with the new prefix and link-local address. Thus if the two link-local
> address happen to be the same, then it would have to fall back to complete
> prefix list. But in other cases, comparing both prefix and link-local
> address may provide optimization over building a complete prefix list.

I am afraid that I don't understood you clearly. You wrote that 

   it compares the old-prefix  && link-local address 
   with the new prefix and link-local address.  

You used the singular for prefix. Is this typo or intentional? In a link with 
multiple prefixes, does a host use the set of prefixes or a prefix for comparison? 

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock