Re: [DNA] [Issue X] LinkID v.s. Landmark Prefix

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Erik

> > Allow me an example.
> >
> > Assume a link with a router R and host H.
> > R advertises Prefix1.
> >
> > R1 happens to stop advertising Prefix1 and
> > start advertising a new prefix Prefix2.
> 
> But in this case, when all the prefixes are being removed and replaced
> with a completely new set of prefixes, there is little if no harm to
> incorrectly assume a link change (after all, all the addresses need to
> be reconfigured, etc).

By adding another router and a few more packet losses, we can make 
a pathological case with a problem. 

> A more realistic example is the one I included in my more recent email
> today.

We can discuss about how real such a problem is but my point is 
that linkid adopts extra techniques to survive even such an extreme 
pathologies. 

> > R announces it by sending an RA but H
> > doesn't receive it.
> >
> > Then next time H receives CompleteRA with
> > Prefix2, it will falsely assume a link change.
> 
> Actually not; if will only assume a link change if it receives a link up
> event notification between the last time it heard a RA with Prefix1 and
> the first time it heard an RA with Prefix2.

Is it so? Does that mean the hosts would not make a decision 
based on unsolicited CompleteRAs? Is it written in an I-D?

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock