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

some text inline.

>
> 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.

DNA is nothing to do with 802.16, it is layer 3 mechanism, you can find
the details at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dna-protocol-03.txt

>
> 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).

Frequent periodic RAs consume the air bandwidth and may cause problems
for dormant devices.

Even if the above is not a problem, still depending RAs for movement detection
may not be a good idea. The better way is to solicit for an RA when the device
observes a L2 movement, to check if the device is on the same link or new one.

Thanks,
Syam

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

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