Re: [DNA] IMPORTANT: Combined DNA Solution draft

[Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>]

Hi Christian,

On 11/6/05, Christian Vogt <chvogt@tm.uka.de> wrote:
> Hi Syam.
>
> > I think it is good to mandate the routers to support Landmark option
> > and it is optional for hosts to use it. This will ease the
> > implemention on host side.
>
> Yes, compliance to DNA should require routers to support both.  Then
> hosts can choose what to use.  Jari brought this up initially.
>
> Besides, support of LinkID on routers will help CPL-only nodes, because
> false positives will no longer occur.  (If routers do not use Link ID,
> CPL may give you false positives.)  Note that CPL-only nodes will not
> know about the use of LinkID, but that doesn't matter.
>

The notion of "LinkID" in the current draft is for Routers only and it is just
a common prefix in RAs. The LinkID is not explicitly notified to hosts so
there is no optional behavior for hosts based on the linkID. But as you said
the common prefix is good for CPL for both DNA and non-DNA hosts.

Regards,
Syam