Re: [DNA] DNA BCP Submission

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>]

Dear JinHyeock -

>>A timeout without receiving a 'RA with current active prefix' can be 
>>used to indicate link change. Right?
>>    
>>
>
>What concerns me about timeout approach is 
>1) it's slow because a host needs to wait till timeout.
>  
>
Agreed.

>2) it's not precise. You need to rely on approximate knowledge, 
>because other incidents, such as packet loss or 
>prefix omission can occur timeout without receiving prefix.  
>  
>
Doesn't the same set of problems apply to CPL also? May be to a varying 
degree?

>This is an example w.r.t. RRD. In a link, assume node1 uses prefix A:: 
>and node2 Prefix B::. When node1 receives an RA only with prefix B::., 
>though it receives a different prefix, it doesn't change a link.  
>  
>
Yes. If a 'unique' for all nodes 'link identifier' is not used, then the 
nodes can not make such assumptions of change.
It should be a more specific algorithm to detect change. See below ..

>I admit that my knowledge on RRD is not thorough. However, it's not 
>clear to me 
>1) how to quicken timeout without side effects, such as false link change detection. 
>  
>
I am only suggesting to quicken the response to a RS - by defining a new 
smaller response time for current access router,
which is identified primarily by means of the current prefix.

>2) what's the advantage of using <current prefix, current access router>, 
>     instead of just a global prefix.
>  
>
I could possibly name a few. But, primarily - the changes proposed in 
RRD is very minimal and I believe it to be very
effective in solving the primary problem of link change detection. I 
will try to enumerate this and other possible
advantages in my presentation (which I haven't prepared yet ;-) ).

regards,
Sathya