On 4 Aug 2009, at 21:13, Xu Xiaohu wrote:
In fact, my question is much simple, that is: when a mobile node
moves to a
new subnet where another node occasionally uses the same identifer
as the
mobile node, should the mobile node renumber its identifier?
First, if the mobile node is thoughtful, the mobile node will be using
an Identifier value based on an IEEE MAC address. In such a case,
the scenario you describe will never occur.
Why is such a non-realistic scenario interesting ?
if so, can the established session using that identifier survives
after idenfifier renumbering?
Yes.
if not, how could the last-hop router distinguishes these two hosts
when forwarding packets destined to one of them?
Now, if the mobile node is NOT using an Identifier value based on an
IEEE MAC address, then the "scope" bit in the Identifier will be set
to "local scope" and so the usual IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
is used.
This use of IPv6 DAD ensures that only one node can possess the same
Identifier value at a given time on a given IPv6 subnet. Of course,
there is a 1:1 mapping between a 64-bit Locator value and an IPv6
subnet.
Could you please tell me in which I-D and which section the above
question
has been answered. Thus I can find the answer quickly. Thanks.
draft-rja-ilnp-intro-02.txt addresses this in several different places.
draft-rja-ilnp-nonce-01.txt is also relevant in several places, for
example the definition of the Correspondent Cache in Section 5.2 where
all Identifiers for each correspondent node are kept inside the cache.
draft-rja-ilnp-dns-01.txt is also relevant in several places, for
example Section 2.2 defines the semantics and syntax of I records.
As with the BGP RFC, the ILNP drafts are protocol specifications,
rather than tutorials. An implementer ought to read them as a set.
Yours,
Ran
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
