Re: [DNA] Issue 6: DNAHostLinkIDList

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

JinHyeock -

I can't see how you can remove the DNAHostLinkIDList without removing
the concept of LinkID itself. As I mentioned in issue 2, we will mandate
the inclusion of the "smallest" prefix in the RA, particularly the
multicast RA, and achieve the advantage of LinkID, but remove the
complexity. I am not 100% sure about this either, but I can't think
anything wrong with doing this. Lets think it over.

- Sathya

>> Issue: Even though the issue was framed differently at the beginning of
>> the meeting, at present the issue is: Can we remove the idea of
>> DNAHostLinkIDList from the solution? Advantages of removing is obviously
>> simplicity, both in logic and the text. The disadvantage in removing it
>> is that the presence of LinkIDs allows for some kinda forward
>> compatibility for future links which may have non-prefix link IDs.
>>
>> Agreement at the meeting: Lets remove LinkID list from the solution.
>> Forward compatibility can be easily supported by the LPO. Non-prefix
>> linkIDs can be advertised on the LPO - since entries in LPO cannot be
>> used for address configuration, it won't cause any problems - the only
>> condition is that the non-prefix LinkIDs MUST be in a different
>> number-space - this can be achieved by requiring that non-prefix LinkIDs
>> MUST be 128 bits.
>>
>> This change simplifies the host operation logic and the text in terms of
>> maintaining multiple lists (DHAHostPrefixList and DNAHostLinkIDList).
>>
>> Any objections?
>
>
> Allow me a clarifying question.
>
> Do you propose to remove only 'DNAHostLinkIDList' or 'LinkID' itself?
> We can keep the 'LinkID' notion, even if we delete 'DNAHostLinkIDList'
> by, maybe, putting a flag for a LinkID prefix in DNAHostPrefixList.
>
> In case of the first, I agree. In case of latter, I need to think it
> over mover.
>
> Best Regards
>
> JinHyeock