[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DNA] Re: LinkID v.s. Landmark Prefix
- To: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
- Subject: [DNA] Re: LinkID v.s. Landmark Prefix
- From: JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:24:16 +0900
- Cc: Syam Madanapalli <syam@samsung.com>, Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>, greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au, James Kempf <Kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>, Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
- DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;b=bBp79CSRgpdb4SMbSQ1Sh+jPqrDAvrGG2RJOzURksNInAYDvsEy9/aJ/pdFhUsTQvdWaPb7yq/R+K7Buhah7zvO0SivloolDN9UhtMnuq7nAnP30PkW4hn/3aHmKGmUljp5vkFBjB8LNp+qEge+VVgBUQz72PdMg5AZHcijNVFs=
- In-reply-to: <42EBB104.9090701@sun.com>
- References: <05a101c58be0$6546c880$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com><42E5A520.8070502@sun.com> <92e919fb05072520046d018db1@mail.gmail.com><42E5AC37.1090603@sun.com> <92e919fb050725212266de187e@mail.gmail.com><42E63568.2080503@sun.com> <92e919fb0507270815223243ee@mail.gmail.com><42E8FF5E.6050109@sun.com> <92e919fb05072913215c0f15a0@mail.gmail.com><42EBB104.9090701@sun.com>
- Reply-to: JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>
- Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au
Dear Erik
> >>When it receives the RA from R2, the only thing it can rely on is the
> >>link up notification (R3 and R3 do not advertise any common prefixes),
> >>since R2 and R3 could be two old routers that are on the same link and
> >>announce disjoint prefixes.
> >
> >
> > It's not clear to me. What can Link UP say to host H? It can't
> > say anything definite about whether link change happens or not.
>
> Link UP indicates to the host that the RA from R3 and R2 could come from
> different links.
> If we want something which doesn't rely on link UP, the host has to
> always treat each RA as potentially being from a different link, which
> would be problematic when
> 1) the routers don't have a common prefix, and
> 2) the routers don't support DNA
> because in the absence of relying on a link UP in this case, the host
> will end up assuming that each time it receives a RA, it has moved to a
> different link.
I see. The "lack of Link UP" can tell host that there is no link change.
> > After H moves from LinkB to LinkA, it receives a hint for
> > a possible link change.
> >
> > To make Link UP presence the smallest, I assume H used
> > the lack of RA from R3 as a hint. H missed 3 RAs from R3
> > and came to suspect a link change.
>
> But that would take 90 minutes by default, since the periodic RAs arrive
> with 30 minute average interval.
Yes, this is possible. I meant it to reduce Link UP dependece and
assumed there would be more frequent RAs as defined in MIPv6.
> > Because H doesn't have a linkid prefix, it needs to use CPL.
> > So H activates CPL module and sends an RS.
> >
> > Because H relies on CPL in this case, it needs Link UP.
>
> So it seems like until every link in the Internet supports DNA (it isn't
> clear to me whether all routers on every link needs to support DNA, or
> whether it is sufficient to have one per link support it), then the
> hosts MUST rely on a reliable link up notification in order to always be
> able to detect movement. Is that correct?
Yes. Link UP is needed for legacy links.
Thanks for your kind consideration.
Best Regards
JinHyeock