[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DNA] Possible way forward: combining Link ID and Landmark?
Dear Pekka
> Based on what I heard during the WG meeting on Thursday and in some
> discussions afterwards, the following proposal occurred to me. It
> may be completely off the mark. If so, please ignore it. I am
> offering this just in the case it might be useful and let the WG to
> move forward.
>
> Would the following work?
>
> 1. Define a new Link ID RA option, as in the Link ID draft.
>
> 2. Define new Landmark RS and RA options, as in the landmark draft.
>
> 3. Routers in a link are encouraged to create a Link ID and
> announce it, but not required. [Details need to be filled in, e.g.,
> if all routers need to agree etc.]
>
> 4a. A host that arrives on a link *with* a Link ID picks the Link
> ID as its landmark.
>
> 4b. A host that arrives on a link *without* a Link ID picks one of
> the prefixes as a landmark, just as in the current landmark draft.
>
> 5. When a host detects that it may have changed links, it looks
> for a landmark (as in the landmark draft) unless it gets a Link ID
> (as the landmark) very quickly (as in the case of FastRA-like
> optimisation).
>
> Based on my very partial understanding, the above outline might
> work. However, it may also be more expensive (in term of bytes or
> packets) than the current proposals. On the other hand, it might
> also be more flexible or robust.
>
> Maybe someone could do further thinking and analysis.
It may be better for us to combine proposed schemes. In brief,
LinkID is useful for link identification under prefix change and
unsolicted RAs, CompleteRA for CPL generation and Landmark for
interoperability with non-supporting links and bandwidth saving.
We may put those features together to produce a robust and flexible
solution. I need to do further thinking and analysis for the efficient
way to merge them. (I am still in After-Meeting-Slumber. :-))
Thanks for your kind consideration.
Best Regards
JinHyeock