Re: [DNA] Landmark vs Link-ID prefix solution

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Dear Jim

Thanks for your detailed feedback. 

> I have tried to pereceive implementation pain and advantage from both
> Landmark and Link-ID views, and the complexity of the code and
> extensions required.  I think this gets into the time vs. space issues
> we faced looking at OSI ES-IS vs ARP when defining ND years ago, only a
> much harder technical problem (I think its up there with SHIM6 work).  I
> see similar positions and debates.  Most of the mail for me has not been
> helpful to sway me one way or the other yet.  It has shown me neither is
> complete yet. What I like about Landmark it is a pure extension to ND
> for IPv6, but what I don't like nor can support at least right now is
> modifying the current RA.  Doing that is not good and I would at least
> like to see means to enhance or form new RA for particpating Landmark
> hosts and routers.  What I like about the Link-ID is I believe it will
> converge quickly for one of my hot buttons for mobility and that is mesh
> networks (note not MANETs and I can get into the diff offline "only"
> with others, per Greg's mail to keep the focus here).  I intend to do in
> depth technical review of both and ask some folks I know out of the IETF
> building mobile networks now for products with MIPv6 who want to be
> anonymous to help me review it as ghost persons, and I am building some
> to of course, so I have a bias clearly. Possibly there is a compromise
> and integration of ideas here.

It would be very nice to have feedback from people building mobile networks. 
I guess mobile operators (and mobile equipment vendors) would be an important 
(maybe the most important) customers for DNA solution, so their opinions 
would be of much value.  

> I am assuming on both sides of the architectures is that there is no IPR
> from any company as authors on either of these solutions?  If there is
> and I missed it in the specs, and I will check again, please speak up
> now and tell us you have patents on what your proposing.  This has to
> stop in the IETF and will probably kill CGA and other ideas that may
> never get widely used in the market.  Most of us are quite sick of it
> and I consider it dishonorable if not presented up front immediately.

There is no IPR attached to LinkID. 

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock