Re: [DNA] Link Identification Scheme ComparisonPowerpointslides

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>]

> Comparison 9:    I think Landmark also depends on CPL on DNA-nonDNA
> movement. There is no way that the Landmark can make decision on its own.

As mentioned in the footnotes in the additional information section, it is the CompleteRA component which helps with building of the CPL (see Comparison 4), which makes it a 'Yes' for the Landmark/CompleteRA column.

> Comparison 10: Support for Mixed Links
> 
> Whether you consider this case different from the Comparison 8.
8, 9, 10 and too some extent 4 are related - different aspects of a underlying concept.

> I guess its the case when the one link have both DNA and non-DNA Routers.
Yes.

> I think this the same problem with the Landmark if the new router comesup in the same link.
I am not sure I understand this comment - new router coming up on a link introduces some kinda instability to both link identification mechansim (I guess it was refered to as flashing on the mailing list).

> 
> Comparison 11: Support for the # of prefixes
> 
> I think here again LinkId has advantage than Landmark. How does the Landmark have the advantage?
That was a bad choice of words, what I meant was - only the Landmark functionality will be available when there are large number of prefixes so that they don't fit in a single RA message. 

> Also I think following points shall be added in the comparison list.
> 
> 1) Synchronisation
> 2) No of new options
> 3) Support for neigborhood information discovery protocols like NED, CARD

I don't think 1) and 2) are useful. And I don't know about 3). Lets discuss it further.

thanks for your comments,
Sathya

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sathya Narayanan" <sathya@research.panasonic.com>
> To: "Greg Daley" <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
> Cc: <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Link Identification Scheme Comparison 
> Powerpointslides
> 
> > The latest comparison slides to be used during the meeting can 
> be found 
> > at:
> >
> > http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/dna/DNASolnComparison_4Aug2005.ppt
> >
> > Please take a look at it and provide feedback.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Sathya
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
> > Date: Friday, July 29, 2005 3:39 pm
> > Subject: [DNA] Link Identification Scheme Comparison Powerpoint 
> slides>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Here is a comparison of the different Link Identification features
> >> available in draft-pentland-dna-protocol and draft-jinchoi-dna-
> >> protocol2
> >>
> >> It's aimed at providing a feature distinction, although there are
> >> also a couple of outstanding issues to be considered separately.
> >>
> >> http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/dna/DNASolnComparison_28July2005.ppt
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> 
>