Re: [DNA] Confirming today's face-to-face meeting decisions

[Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Sathya Narayanan wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>>> 2) Whether immediate change is detected in link-scoped
>> 
>> identifier is actually not clear - this is primarily because of the
>> non-dependency of the method on L2 trigger (and that is arguably a
>> good thing), so the average gain in the detection time for
>> link-scoped identifier approach MAY not be very high. Again, we
>> need some analysis.
>> 
>> I think this is a separate problem.  The point is in being able to
>>  makea correct decision based on the reception of a single RA.  How
>>  you get that RA is a separate problem.
> 
> Yes. It is a separate problem, but when we are talking (comparing)
> the quickness of link-change-detection we need to look at the
> complete picture. If the link-scoped approach has the property of
> link-change-detection when a unsolicited RA is received (which is a
> good thing about it), but how useful is it if you need the RS message
> to initiate it for rapid-detection is a valid point to consider in
> terms of the cost. If the link-scoped approach depends on a RS
> message, than host-scoped approach is (arguably) as good as the
> link-scoped approach with less out-of-band cost.
> 
I'm not sure I understand your point.  Yes, I agree that the whole
picture needs to be considered, but aren't we comparing two things
that depend on receiving RAs.  If so, then isn't the time taken to
get them the same in each case?

Brett.