Re: [DNA] Issue 2: What if no prefix is advertised?

[Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Sathya,

We have an issue in that routers may already be available which do
not advertise a prefix (as it is not precluded).

I would suggest that these routers should try to advertise a prefix, 
be it a learned or native (PIO) prefix.

That way routers can participate if they learn of other prefixes.
Otherwise, they will still advertise if there are no prefixes known anyway.
This will provide hosts with the A= and M= flags sufficient to initiate DHCP
(which is not a DNA process but can provide the change detection required).

Greg

----- Original Message -----
From: Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>
Date: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:10 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] Issue 2: What if no prefix is advertised?
To: Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>

> If we are going to mandate that the router advertise one prefix even
> when stateful autoconfiguration is used and that it must be the 
> smallestprefix, we are implicitly requiring the adminstrator to 
> configure each
> of these routers with this information, right? Or, are we talking 
> aboutthe routers sniffing DHCP messages - What does it mean?
> 
> I am leaving this open for now, until I hear comments on this 
> question.
> - Sathya
> 
> JinHyeock Choi wrote:
> 
> >> Issue: If stateful autoconfiguration is used, the routers may not
> >> advertise any prefix in its RA message. DNA will not work 
> without prefix
> >> advertised. Current text relies on DHCP confirm message exchange 
> for DNA
> >> in that case.
> >>
> >> Agreement at the meeting: Lets mandate the inclusion of one 
> prefix in
> >> all RA message, with L= 0 and A=0. But, atleast one prefix is a 
> MUST.>> The router MUST include the smallest prefix either in PIO 
> or LPO of all
> >> RA messages.
> >> Note: I am not refering to the smallest prefix as "LinkID" 
> because in
> >> "Issue 6", I will be proposing the removal of the concept of 
> LinkIDs.>> The forward compatibility advantage of the LinkIDs can 
> be easily
> >> supported and refer to the email on Issue 6 is further details.
> >>
> >> If you have any objections to the proposed change please post your
> >> objections on the list.
> >
> >
> > I agree and, IMO, the concept of 'LinkID' is of help. It would be
> > simpler to mandate to include LinkID prefix.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > JinHyeock
> 
> 
>