Re: 6MAN Adoption call on raft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-04

Hi,

Just a random recent thought.

Perhaps it might be better to treat the link as an NBMA subnet, and use RFC2491 "IPv6 over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks" to eliminate all multicasts (including ND, MLD and application), except perhaps RAs with a flag that indicate the link is operating in NBMA mode (with RA timers larger than defaults - IIRC, the max router age value is 90 minutes, so unsolicited RAs can be around 30 minutes apart)?

Regards,
Mark.

----- Original Message -----
> From: Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
> To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>; Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
> Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, 20 December 2013 11:55 AM
> Subject: RE: 6MAN Adoption call on raft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-04
> 
> Hi Erik,
> 
> Some explanation for  your comments below:
> 
> 
>>  Fundamentally, the main use case seems to be trying to merge two different 
> link types.  One link type for low power nodes, one for "more 
> traditional" nodes, if you will.
> [SC>] 
> [SC>]  The main usecase of the solution is to reduce multicast and do 
> registration of nodes to the default routers.  It indeed helps wireless devices  
> not to waste energy on repeated multicast transmission/reception and wireless 
> switches and Wifi-controllers to be more efficient  (due to reduced multicast 
> messaging). Optionally it can do further support on mobility of wireless devices 
> within a large area containing multiple default routers covering the same 
> subnet. The registration, in turn helps reduce ND DOS problem as well as a 
> by-product.
> 
>>  I think we have *routing* for this.  Merging what is really two different 
> L2 types so that they can try to be one seemless L2 domain still doesn't 
> feel right to me.
> [SC>]  This document  does not talk about merging two different link types.  
> If you are referring to mixed modes section -- they are simply the use-cases for 
> accommodating classic RFC4861 and the nodes that follow the registration method. 
> 
> 
> The efficient ND simply allows many different types of devices ( cell phones, 
> PDA, laptops, cameras, TV, wireless gadgets, servers, Routers etc.) to stay in 
> same IPv6 subnet and communicate with each other more efficiently than today in 
> IPv6. That's why we need this solution as the world is going toward IPv6 
> with wireless devices.
> 
> I think you have been confusing it with RFC6775(6lowpan-ND) - which is a 
> different thing and allows multi-link subnets. 
> 
> Cheers,
> -Samita
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 