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

[Samita Chakrabarti <Samita.Chakrabarti@eng.sun.com>]

> > 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? 

Sorry for not being very clear. In my mind I was assuming that the MN would
maintain at least two lists. Each list will contain a table of prefixes and
corresponding link-local-address of the advertised router.

When it gets an link-up indication, for some reason, MN can compare the
RA prefixes and the corresponding link-local addresses (new list)
with the prefix && link-local addres entry in the existing list.
If there is a match then it can assume that it is on same link - false
indication.  If there is no match with the new link-local address and
ll addresses on the old list, it may optimistically assume that it has
moved to a new link and then leisurely complete the prefix-ll addres list
table in the new link. 

-Samita