Re: [16NG] Resolutions to issues raised during 2nd WGLC of I-D draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-04 [1]

Hi JinHyeock,

JinHyeock Choi wrote:
> Dear Alex
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. Kindly find my in-line comments.
> 
>>> and there is no reason for the host to depend on RAs to detect if
>>>  it has moved across ARs. Hence there is no reason for any change
>>>  w.r.t 3775 and I do not see RFC3775 over-riding the values 
>>> specified here.
>> 
>> There is no other means for an IP stack on top of IPv6CS to know 
>> that the subnet has changed.  This is where MIP6 reacts, on subnet 
>> change, not on PHY change.  So the 802.16 BS, if it sends RAs, it 
>> should send them quickly.
> 
> Allow me to make is more clear.
> 
> A 802.16 host doesn't have to rely on unsolicited PERIODIC RAs for 
> movement detection. Upon network attachment, either 1) the access 
> router sends an unsolicted RA as of FRD (draft-ietf-dna-frd-02) or 2)
>  the host sends an RS to get a solicited RA as of DNAv6 
> (draft-ietf-dna-protocol-03.txt).

I am not sure what you mean by 'network attachment'?  I suppose you mean
the network entry procedure of 802.16?  ('Attach' in 802.16 mostly means
to attach a part of message to another part, and only in one single
place a SS to a BS).

In the network entry procedure of the 802.16 document there is nothing
that suggests the behaviour you suggest above (DNA).   Only ND is
suggested, not DNA.

Periodic RA is in widespread use for movement detection.  I do not
understand the opposition to use periodic RAs as allowed by rfc3775.
What breaks if we use periodic RAs with a frequency higher than 1/4s?
(remark arguments of air interface gains are different on high-bandwidth
links).

Alex

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng