El 08/08/2006, a las 9:51, Narayanan, Vidya escribió:
I believe those will be unicast RAs sent to the link local address -
there will be a huge mess without that, as you observe (I believe
there is a mess in the addressing model even with that, but it will be
worse with broadcast RAs).
so, the router will not send unsolicited RADV but will only answer to
router solicitations is that it?
wouldn't this pose some problems with movement detection for instance?
i mean there will no periodic RADV to detect the we are on a different
link... but i guess you are assuming some for netlmm... but this is off
topic for the int ml i guess
regards, marcelo
The other strange thing here is that the mobile may not
know that it
is being "assigned" anything - so, it may continue to use stateless
autoconfig, assuming it is a shared prefix.
i am lost now.... are you using something different than
stateless autocnf and than dhcp? a new address conf protocol
for specific for netlmm?
I'm waiting to see some proposed text myself to see how this whole
thing is going to work on shared media :) Based on the emails I've
seen, I think the proposal is the following (people who are actually
proposing this may correct anything I say incorrectly here):
When a mobile shows up, the AR obtains a prefix for the mobile from
the LMA using the NETLMM protocol. That prefix is sent in a unicast RA
to the mobile by the AR. The MN doesn't really know it is a unique
prefix - it performs SLAAC and comes up with an address and performs
DAD.
At the moment, I'm very skeptical about slapping a point-to-point
model on shared media - I'll wait for some text to see if I can
convince myself :)
Regards,
Vidya
regards, marcelo
The other point here that may be considered weird is that
although the
prefix is being "assigned" so to say, there is no lifetime for it
(unlike DHCP-PD, for e.g.) - so, I'm not sure if these prefixes are
pretty much permanently assigned or if, based on the NETLMM
location
registration information, these are somehow removed.
Vidya
breaking the goal of having one node per prefix?
Not sure about the goal of having one node per prefix, where is it
from?
I know about a netlmm goal needing MN not to change its address
(maybe called CoA, not sure), not sure whether this is in the reqs
draft either.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
