Re: [DNA] Couple of points on draft-jinchoi-dna-soln-frame-00.txt

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

Hi Erik, 

----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2004 3:31 pm
Subject: Re: [DNA] Couple of points on draft-jinchoi-dna-soln-frame-00.txt

> Greg,
> 
> > Uniqueness is likely to be guaranteed by the routing
> > infrastructure if we use a prefix, and prefixes may change.
> > Additionally, prefixes have their own semantics, which may
> > prevent PIOs being used as linkIDs.
> 
> Which are the semantics of prefixes that makes you think might
> prevent their use?

OK, I think I may have left out some background.

Really I was talking about a common (explicit)
linkID, which could be configured on all
routers. 

The existing 2461 statements about disjoint prefixes
being allowed on a subnet would indicate that 
routers will not be able to always agree on a 
prefix which they can all advertise.

If they did so, one or more routers would be
advertising a global prefix they have no
existing configuration knowledge of...

This may be misleading or inappropriate
when dealing with non-DNA ipv6 hosts.

If we have a separate option which has
a globally unique identifier (or even a locally
unique one), then the information will have
different semantics not tied to existing 
prefix information option semantics.

This may lead to additional information being
transmitted in RAs though (the explicit 
link identifier option).

Greg