Hesham Soliam wrote: > >So we have at least two solutions which provide > >unambiguous prefix indications: > > > >LinkID + Solicited RA (lower overhead) > >Completeness Bit (simpler) > > => Agreed. Both of those options would solve the problem. > > The LinkID + Solicited RA would seem to solve > the movement detection problem quicker than the > "Completeness" bit. If you can see the LinkID you'd > only solicit if you see a different one. However, with > the completeness bit, you really don't know if you moved > whenever you receive an incomplete RA, right? Meaning, > a paranoid MN with no other hints, could end up soliciting > for a complete RA more often that in the case where it > sees the LinkID and know whether it should solicit. > > It seems like the LinkID is a better approach then? Or > am I missing something?
There are pro and con between them. For example, if an MN receives a complete RA which contains all the prefixes, it can form new CoA immediately. Whereas, if it receives a RA which contains LinkID but no prefixe, an additional RS/ RA exchange is needed. As Tim Hartrick wrote, the code or bit don't work all by themselves. They are not sufficient for efficient MD. We need to specify new protocol machinery, which, I hope, will be done at DNA quickly. Best regards. JinHyeock 1H>þ°¢¹"ž+¢êfj)bž b²Ø©¿¨žµú+€fŠx¬¶¶Š÷‘z«ž²Û!¶Úlÿü0ÃXžµú+ƒùšŠYšŸùb²Ø§~â¦þ
