[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DNA] Issue 2: What if no prefix is advertised?
Hi Sathya,
I agree that we can ask DNA routers to do this,
and perhaps for DNA purposes MUST is OK.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>
Date: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:56 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] Issue 2: What if no prefix is advertised?
To: Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
Cc: Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
> Hello Greg -
>
> I agree with what you have said.
>
> But, the open issue is different: the case we are talking about
> with
> this issue is when stateful address configuration is used on a
> particular link. We agreed during the last meeting to mandate the
> router
> on such a link to advertise atleast one prefix (the smallest
> prefix)
> with A=0 and L=0, so that the hosts can still use the RS/RA
> exchange to
> find out about network attachement. At the moment, there is text in
> the
> draft for using DHCP CONFIRM - we thought we could remove this text
> after mandating that routers advertise atleast one prefix.
>
> My questions is: how will the routers know about a prefix if
> stateful
> address configuration is used - do we understand/agree that the
> routers
> MUST be configured with this information (atleast one prefix) even
> when
> stateful address configuration is used. Is that acceptable?
>
> Sathya
>
> >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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>