Re: [DNA] No FastRA unless Landmark?(draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00)

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

Hi Sathya,

Sathya Narayanan wrote:
> Greg -
[cut]
> 
> Including all PIOs may help - atleast if there was no link change, because the
 > host will see a prefix it is using in one of the RA messages. If 
there was a
 > link change, the non-DNA host will still have to wait for 
MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME
 > before they decide that they have moved, which is still better than 
waiting
 > for the multicast. This is a cost-benefit question, is it worth the extra
 > messages to support non-DNA hosts? I don't have an opinion on this.

I think you're assuming that they employ lazy cell switching.

There are various heuristics already available in the research
and implementation spaces (MIPv6 is a PS...).

Additionally, the host may have other reasons to believe link
change is required, even if it was implemented before DNA
is standardized (such as it uses FMIPv6, or is on a particular
access technology).

We don't need to force devices to change (O/S) code in order to
provide them with a useful service.

> <snip> 
> 
>>(Now visiting the CompleteRA without Landmark solicitation issue).
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>Why doesn't it know? because without the landmark you can't tell that it's DNA capable.
>>
>>Fortunately, there are plenty of bits left in the RS header (32)
>>which could be used to identify a DNA solicitation without divulging
>>the last attached prefix of the host in a landmark option.
> 
> 
> Yeah - we can do this. We just need to be aware that sending unicast-completeRA
 > at fastRA rate from all routers for every received RS message makes the
 > amplification effect more deadly.


It really depends on the tokens and how they're used.  If a token
provides ABC (appropriate byte counting), then the transmission of
a message with completeRA would diminish the number of RA messages to
be sent.

This in effect would mean that peak FastRA bandwidth would be
prescribed.

> 
>>Please be aware that I personally consider location privacy to be a 'big issue'.
> 
> 
> I don't understand this concern. When a IPv6 hosts transmits IPv6 packets on
 > the network wouldn't its IPv6 address become public immediately - or 
when it
 > responds to NS message for that matter - what information are you 
trying to
 > protect by not including a landmark option in the RS message. Please 
explain.

How about if I used a different MAC address and IPv6 address (+key?)
to do DNA every time I got a link up indication?

If I was on the same link, I could go back to my existing identity.

This temporary identity couldn't be tied back to my existing identity.

Greg