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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

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 withFrom [e-mail]  Wed Sep 24 07:01:38 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 671F13A6DC4;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:01:38 -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 1F6423A6D76
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 SsQhUjdHfS06 for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E50E3A6DE9
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se
	[138.85.77.50])
	by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m8OE14RB026603;
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:01:04 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.53]) by
	eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:01:04 -0500
Received: from [142.133.10.113] ([142.133.10.113]) by
	eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:01:03 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:01:33 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2008 14:01:03.0829 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[FB8B3850:01C91E4D]
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

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 thein 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


 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