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

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Dear Brett

Thanks for your summary. I assume Landmark/ CompleteRA will follow
the memo.  

> For Landmarks:
> 
>    If a prefix is removed, the host will receive a "NO" answer, which
>    also include prefixes that are on the link and have been seen by the
>    host before so it can see there is no link change and yet will also
>    know that the prefix it was using as a landmark is no longer valid.
>    (I think we need text to clear that up)

So in this case, the known prefix in the RA overrules "NO" answer. 
Right? 

> For CompleteRA (which is proposed as a fallback for when it is not
> possible to use landmarks):
> 
>    By its nature it creates overlap between the sets of RAs advertised
>    by the routers on a link.  It doesn't matter whether the sets
>    agree completely or not, as long as there's overlap (because link-
>    change is detected by receiving a RA with a set disjoint from the
>    set of prefixes the host has seen on the link).  The pathological
>    case that we may need to take action to avoid is where a router
>    that is currently configured with all of the prefixes in use on a
>    link, suddenly has all of them removed and replaced with a new
>    disjoint set.  We need to add some text to say not to do that.

So I understand you try to assure that there always a overlapping 
prefix among CompleteRAs even under prefix change. Right?  

I admit that I don't look over Landmark/CompleteRA 01-draft but the 
above seems a little different from what I remember. I think it would
help to write those down lest there should be unnecessary confusion. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock