Re: [dna] Applicability statement for Simple DNA (Providing text to resolve issue #11)

Hello Suresh,

Why would different ARs use same MAC address.

By the way, may I suggest that DNA documents use the term link layer 
address rather than MAC address? 

I know it's longer but the MAC qualifier sounds a bit too specific to 
me...

--julien

 On Wednesday 24 September 2008, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Domagoj,
>    In my view (or should I say in the MN's view) of the PMIP spec the
> new AR will be indistinguishable from the old AR. This is because the
> old AR will have the same link local AND MAC addresses. So, this is
> semantically equivalent to detaching and attaching to the SAME link.
> Hence Simple DNA will already work well with this scenario as well
> with no modifications.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>
> On Wednesday 24 September 2008, Premec, Domagoj wrote:
> > I think that there may be cases where the host may benefit from
> > simple DNA even when it attaches to a previously unvisited link.
> > For example, as the host moves within the PMIP domain, the IPv6
> > prefix assigned to the host moves together with the host across ARs
> > (MAGs). When attaching to a new link the host will see the new AR
> > advertising the same prefix, but the old AR will not be reachable
> > any more. In this case, the host should quickly update its default
> > router to the address of the new AR to avoid loosing packets sent
> > to the address of a previous default router. There is no need for
> > the host to execute any address configuration/verification
> > procedures. This would provide better handover perfomance when
> > moving within the PMIP domain. Is this someting that could be
> > accomodated by the simple DNA?
> >
> > domagoj
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dna-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dna-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> > > Sent: 23. rujan 2008 17:05
> > > To: dna@ietf.org; JinHyeock Choi; JinHyeock Choi
> > > Subject: [dna] Applicability statement for Simple DNA
> > > (Providing text to resolve issue #11)
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > >    I propose to add the following text to a new section
> > > called "Applicability" to resolve issue #11. The previous
> > > applicability section will be moved into a new section called
> > > "Working assumptions".
> > >
> > > NEW TEXT:
> > > =========
> > >
> > >     The Simple DNA protocol is provides substantial benefits in
> > > some scenarios and does not provide any benefit at all in certain
> > > other scenarios.  This is intentional as Simple DNA was designed
> > > for simplicity rather than completeness.  In particular, the
> > > Simple DNA
> > >     protocol provides maximum benefits when a host moves
> > > between a small
> > >     set of known links.  When a host moves to a completely
> > > new link that
> > >     is previously unknown, the performance of the Simple DNA
> > > protocol will be identical to that using standard neighbor
> > > discovery procedures [RFC4861].
> > >
> > > If you have any issues with this text, please respond to this
> > > mail on list.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Suresh
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dna mailing list
> > > dna@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dna mailing list
> > dna@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna

-- 
--julien

[ New email address: julien.laganier.IETF@googlemail.com ]
_______________________________________________
dna mailing list
dna@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna