Re: [DNA] Usage of DNA

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

Hi Syam,

Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> 
> 
> I think DNA is useful for reactive handoffs, I am not really sure we can 
> achieve the seamless
> 
> mobility with the reactive handoffs. I think proactive handoff does 
> better for seamless mobility.

DNA is not intended to replace FMIPv6.  Nor is it strictly tied to
mobility: Othewise it would be called "Movement Detection" rather than
"Detecting Network Attachment"  (nifty acronym notwithstanding).

So there are scenarios which aren't strictly mobility or (even if they
are) aren't handover related which may be applicable to DNA.

For example:

radio base-station failure and reselection,
base station movement (such as LEO satellites)
data squirting after device sleeping,  etc.

Also in some types of access networks, there may not be a
predictive FMIPv6 for long time yet.

DNA may well fill a role supporting "sufficiently fast"
(though not seamless) handovers within those networks.

> When FMIPv6 becomes popular, I doubt if we really need the DNA. My 
> understanding is that
> 
> DNA and FMIPv6 do not complement each other. Please shed some light on 
> this.

FMIPv6 is a mechanism which can make use of prediction, but also has
a reactive scenario for when prediction fails or is unavailable.

Rapid determination that the link is not what was intended (using DNA)
should help even hosts with FMIPv6.

You are right in saying that a successful FMIPv6 handover may be able
to remove the need for DNA on a particular base-station handover.
One of the sections of the DNA hosts BCP has been intended to include
details of interactions with RFC experimental protocols such as FMIPv6
and CARD.

If a clarifying statement about that would be useful, then we can start
working on the text.

Does this answer your query?

Greg