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

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Erik

> > By adding another router and a few more packet losses, we can make
> > a pathological case with a problem.
> 
> Can you provide an example?

ok. I admit this is a crude one but all I can think of right now.  
(Because it's not clear to me how a host base its decision 
on CompleteRA, I switch to landmark one.) 

Assume a link with two routers R1 and R2 and a host H. 
R1 advertises Prefix1 and R2 Prefix2. 

R2 stops advertising Prefix2 and starts advertising Prefix3. 
R2 announces the prefix change by sending an RA but
both R1 and H don't receive it. 

Then H happens to change its AP in the same link 
and send an RS with landmark Prefix2. It also happens that 
R2 replies first and sends an RA with NO and Prefix3. 
H falsely assumes a link change. 

> > Is it so? Does that mean the hosts would not make a decision
> > based on unsolicited CompleteRAs? Is it written in an I-D?
> 
> I thought this was a working group trying to figure out how we'd like
> the solution to work; not some attempt to choose one out of a set of
> competing, and perhaps incomplete, internet-drafts.

ok. 

>> 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.

The above is not clear to me yet. Allow me a question to help 
my understanding.  

Assume a host moves to a different link but fails to receive a 
Link Up event Notification. Then the host will not assume a link 
change even if it receives a different unsolicted CompleteRA? 
 
Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock