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

[Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Jim,

Thanks very much for your feedback.  I think that part of the difficulty
with the discussion on the list is that we are comparing solutions
that are really very similar (and in fact there are others that could
be made to work fairly well too).

For both of the proposals, the routers on a link need to monitor what
the other routers are doing, and for compatibility with non-DNA-enhanced
routers both proposals, rely on CPL which requires the hosts to monitor
all of the prefixes as well.  The differences are in which bits of the
information get exchanged.

Because the differences are not dramatic the discussion has focussed
on a search for corner cases where one does better than the other and
maybe this focus on minutae has muddied the waters more than clearing
them.

I've got a couple of questions for you below.

Thanks again for your review.
Brett.

PS.  I'm not aware of any IPR encumberences on any of these ideas.

Bound, Jim wrote:
> 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.

I'm not sure I understand the comment about modifying the current RA.
Are you referring to the addition of the Landmark Option, the suggestion
that PIOs, etc. need not be included if the answer to the landmark
question is "yes", or something else?

>  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"

Can you say what it is about mesh networks that Link-ID serves well?
Maybe it's something that we haven't fully considered and it would be
useful to know more about it.