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

I was thinking of both the IP and the link-layer address. From the host perspective, this looks similar to the case where the current default router goes down and at the same time a new default router appears on the link. I'm not sure about the case where both ARs are using the same IP address but their link layer addresses are different. Updating only the link layer address while the IP address remains the same may be considered as a special case, but I'm not sure if there are any security considerations.

domagoj

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Laganier [mailto:julien.laganier.ietf@googlemail.com] 
> Sent: 24. rujan 2008 15:48
> To: dna@ietf.org
> Cc: Premec, Domagoj; Suresh Krishnan; JinHyeock Choi; JinHyeock Choi
> Subject: Re: [dna] Applicability statement for Simple DNA 
> (Providing text to resolve issue #11)
> 
> Quick question for clarification.
> 
> You said "the host should quickly update its default router 
> to the address of the new AR".
> 
> By "address" I'm assuming you mean "link layer address". Is 
> that correct?
> 
> --julien
> 
> 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