|
Comments below. > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:29:46 +0430 > From: jinchoe@gmail.com > To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: [DNA] RE: Review of draft-krishnan-dna-simple-01.txt > CC: Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com; dna@eng.monash.edu.au; greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au; narten@us.ibm.com; erik.nordmark@sun.com; jari.arkko@piuha.net > > Dear Suresh & Greg > > I managed to go over the draft and thanks for your trouble. > > Before making comments, I'd like to ensure that I understand the draft right. > Here are a few clarifying questions. > > 1. Assumption > The draft seems to assume the following w.r.t prefix advertisement. > > 1) All routers on the link advertise the same prefixes. [BA] No. It is possible to send multiple NS so that this assumption is not required. > 2) It's out of scope how routers would synchronize their advertisement. > > Do I understand right? > > 2. Link identification. > The draft seems to check for link change as below. > > 1) Upon receiving link-layer indication, > a host would send an RS and an NS simultaneously. [BA] Yes. > 2) If the host receives a solicited NA from a known node > of a previously attached link, > the host assumes it still remains in the same link. [BA] Yes -- unless the RA provides different information. > 3) If the host receives a solicited RA with a known prefix > of a previously attached link, > the host assumes it still remains in the same link. > Otherwise, i.e. the host receives no known prefix in the RA, > the host assumes it moved to a different link. [BA] There is also the possibility that DHCPv6 is in use, in which case 2) can confirm the validity of an IPv6 address whose lease has not yet expired. > 4) When 2 & 3 give conflicting answers, 3's decision is definite. [BA] Correct -- except for DHCPv6 case, where 2) may confirm the validity of a previously assigned address, but 3) may indicate the need to send a DHCPv6 request. As before if the DHCPv6 assigned address conflicts with the address determined in 2), then DHCPv6 wins. |