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

["Premec, Domagoj" <[e-mail]>]

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 handoveFrom [e-mail]  Wed Sep 24 06:26:02 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF423A6D4F;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EB83A6A53
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.43
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id xUv5EWdpmm2Y for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxs2.siemens.at (mxs2.siemens.at [194.138.12.133])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389883A6D4F
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vies1k7x.sie.siemens.at ([158.226.129.83])
	by mxs2.siemens.at  with ESMTP id m8ODP26N010231;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:25:02 +0200
Received: from nets139a.ww300.siemens.net ([192.168.217.3])
	by vies1k7x.sie.siemens.at (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.1) with ESMTP id
	m8ODOwbM021167; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:24:58 +0200
Received: from zagh223a.ww300.siemens.net ([141.29.124.9]) by
	nets139a.ww300.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:24:57 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:24:51 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [dna] Applicability statement for Simple DNA (Providing text to
	resolve issue #11)
Thread-Index: AckdjcRA9vw7FkW9Tx6Wjq+l00kGfwAue0PA
References: <[e-mail]>
From: "Premec, Domagoj" <[e-mail]>
To: "Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
	"JinHyeock Choi" <[e-mail]>,
	"JinHyeock Choi" <[e-mail]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2008 13:24:57.0809 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[F07ECC10:01C91E48]
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Checked for Spam by eleven - eXpurgate www.eXpurgate.net
X-purgate-ID: 149917::080924152502-0B627BA0-449804D8/0-0/0-15
X-purgate-size: 2357/999999
Subject: Re: [dna] Applicability statement for Simple DNA (Providing text to
	resolve issue #11)
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNA working group mailing list <dna.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dna>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

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 perfr perfomance when moving within the PMIP domain. Is this someting that could be accomodated by the simple DNA?

domagoj 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> Sent: 23. rujan 2008 17:05
> To: [e-mail]; 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna
> 
_______________________________________________
dna mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna


omance when moving within the PMIP domain. Is this someting that could be accomodated by the simple DNA?

domagoj 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> Sent: 23. rujan 2008 17:05
> To: [e-mail]; 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna
> 
_______________________________________________
dna mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna