> > The first unsolicited NA (O=0) is allowed because there are cases > > (think predictive handovers) where the router may be buffering > > traffic for the MN, but it needs some signal from the MN to inform > > it of its arrival (the NS doesnt' have enough information). > > The NA O=0 will be enough to get this started. It's a MAY because > > its only useful in this particular case. Does that make sense? > > I understand the motivation, but it is not convincing enough based on > my "basic logic". Also, if the motivation to optimize roaming between > a mobile node and a router that has the ability to support the MN, do > we really need to realize that by overloading the existing protocol > mechanism, with taking a risk to cause disruption? Can't we do that > with, e.g., a new ND option that only works for nodes that understand > it?
Agreed. Depending on how the buffering at the router fits in with other signalling (DNA etc) it might make sense to add some new "identity token" option (which could contain the previous CoA of the MN) in the router solicitiation message as a way to hint to the router that the MN has arrived on the new link. (Of course, such a token wouldn't be a secure indication that the node has arrived unless SEND technology or something equally strong is applied). So I think we can leave this part out of optimistic-dad for the time being and worry about in the DNA or in the specific case of predictive handover. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
