Re: [DNA] Proposed resolution to issue 9 fordraft-pentland-dna-protocol-01.txt

[Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>]

Hi Brett,

I think we may need to check for the prefixes that the other routers
on the link advertising. That is we need to build CPL on the new
link.

-Syam


On 8/3/05, Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> Hi DNA WG,
> 
> All of the recent discussion on the issue of RAs that include
> a "no" answer in a Landmark Option but also include prefixes
> that have been seen on the link, has been in favour of
> treating this as an indication that link change has not
> taken place.  Here is some proposed text to reflect this:
> 
> Old text:
> 
>       Instead if the 'N' bit is set in the received Landmark Option, a
>       change of link is indicated and the host SHOULD initiate
>       reconfiguration using the information in the Router Advertisement.
> 
> New text:
> 
>       Instead if the 'N' bit is set in the received Landmark Option, AND
>       there is no overlap between the list of prefixes in the Router
>       Advertisement and the list of prefixes that the host has stored
>       for CPL [14], a change of link is indicated and the host SHOULD
>       initiate reconfiguration using the information in the Router
>       Advertisement.
> 
>       If the 'N' bit is set in the received Landmark Option, but there
>       is one or more prefixes in the Router Advertisement that are also
>       in the list of prefixes the host has stored for CPL, this is an
>       indication that no link change has occured but there is prefix
>       change underway on the link.  The host MUST NOT invalidate its
>       current configuration.
> 
> Any comments?
> Brett.
>