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

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).

So RA interval won't affect movement detection (or DNA) delay.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

Best Regards

JinHyeock

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