Re: [DNA] DNA proposal issue 19 - was [Issue X] LinkID v.s. LandmarkPrefix

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

Hi Erik, 

----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:24 pm
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA proposal issue 19 - was [Issue X] LinkID v.s. 
Landmark Prefix
> Greg Daley wrote:
> 
> > In CPL which is host (only) based, the timers are on the host, 
> and 
> > protect
> > the host from long term damage, by removing unupdated 
> information 
> > at the host.
> > 
> > Even with the most broken readvartisement scheme for stale 
> information,> the damage could only occur for a maximum:
> > (Router out-of-date timer + Host out-of-date timer)
> 
> Are you talking about RFC 2461, or are you talking about a 
> proposal for 
> how CPL could work?

Sorry I think I changed topics in mid e-mail, and referred
to CPL as an example of particular behaviour, before
going back to my main topic.

The inequality refers to modified advertisement schemes
(those which readvertise learnt information), rather than
CPL.

Greg