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

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

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 doFrom [e-mail]  Wed Sep 24 06:48:26 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 14E203A6DD7;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:48:26 -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 2F40F3A6DB2
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jrmtzTQ2y2bL for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.185])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7853F3A6DA8
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b11so988684nfh.39
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc
	:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from;
	bh=aAcLIb7/9BY3Hbv1Gmg5Fv3hQPAFnZVynAjbNg/H6TQ=;
	b=VjPqm+99mzpIKNX9fXAP1RSELh/J15a4d+UndtDtUZgwP/RISEPT8e9f6hIKCPZAo2
	ghxX+XaYyUB61Rap9y33+GHOxLlLJYTOfQfi9prS6btiYI+pS7K86dc+N/nkUbRwFgW6
	13r86d9m+6jCXk2vhocHxnMswysfYKcr82DwA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
	:message-id:from;
	b=AdLuM7hH3e3ywhd7EfpZGBsY2ia+KIQkb5EA+kMhZUkjbShtFg+uHRpPFWIdeVwLrc
	nAyGuWNGy+FPMbPtAQQv1sk05ZcKZW5wEgEYAocpGhhc2KsmIHU+naOPwSe7gTTtpCy8
	P9pA8resrAlHWW3gzmgTSz357F4HWoTO69z94=
Received: by 10.210.62.12 with SMTP id k12mr8496886eba.17.1222264076159;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from klee.local ([212.119.9.178])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p10sm6343816gvf.7.2008.09.24.06.47.54
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:48:17 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>
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]

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, main, 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: [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



-- 
--julien

[ New email address: [e-mail] ]
_______________________________________________
dna mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna


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: [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



-- 
--julien

[ New email address: [e-mail] ]
_______________________________________________
dna mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna