Subject: [DNA] Landmark vs Link-ID prefix solution

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:49:11 -0400

I have tried to pereceive implementation pain and advantage from both
Landmark and Link-ID views, and the complexity of the code and
extensions required.  I think this gets into the time vs. space issues
we faced looking at OSI ES-IS vs ARP when defining ND years ago, only a
much harder technical problem (I think its up there with SHIM6 work).  I
see similar positions and debates.  Most of the mail for me has not been
helpful to sway me one way or the other yet.  It has shown me neither is
complete yet. What I like about Landmark it is a pure extension to ND
for IPv6, but what I don't like nor can support at least right now is
modifying the current RA.  Doing that is not good and I would at least
like to see means to enhance or form new RA for particpating Landmark
hosts and routers.  What I like about the Link-ID is I believe it will
converge quickly for one of my hot buttons for mobility and that is mesh
networks (note not MANETs and I can get into the diff offline "only"
with others, per Greg's mail to keep the focus here).  I intend to do in
depth technical review of both and ask some folks I know out of the IETF
building mobile networks now for products with MIPv6 who want to be
anonymous to help me review it as ghost persons, and I am building some
to of course, so I have a bias clearly.  Possibly there is a compromise
and integration of ideas here.

What I empatically do not agree with is James K's statement that we
should stop work on Link-ID because it may use up a bit more time and
white paper space than Landmark.  That is not an engineering argument or
technical rationale, but false bravado at this point I will assume for
time-to-market reasons.  I agree with need to ship something, but this
is serious stuff, and unless Greg tells me we don't have more time I
assume we can get this right?

I am assuming on both sides of the architectures is that there is no IPR
from any company as authors on either of these solutions?  If there is
and I missed it in the specs, and I will check again, please speak up
now and tell us you have patents on what your proposing.  This has to
stop in the IETF and will probably kill CGA and other ideas that may
never get widely used in the market.  Most of us are quite sick of it
and I consider it dishonorable if not presented up front immediately.

/jim

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:16:12 -0700

Jim

> assume we can get this right?

I think I might not have been clear. What I intended to say was that I think
backward compatibility is more important than whether one or another
protocol has a few extra bytes. It sounds like that is what you are
concerned with too.
 Or are you saying that you think size/time is more important?

            jak

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:38:24 +1000

Hi Jim,

Bound, Jim wrote:
[cut]
> I see similar positions and debates.  Most of the mail for me has not been
> complete yet.

Actually, I see things differently.

In my personal opinion, most of the e-mails have been trying
very hard to differentiate the protocols.  Possibly we've been
trying too hard - and that doesn't help people reading the threads.

I guess this gives the impression that the protocol work is incomplete.
Rather, I think the solutions may end up being over-engineered if
we try to handle each of the smallest corner cases (just to show
one as better than another).

Given that we have two protocols which achieve primarily the same
outcome (both have running code), what I think we need now
is to generate a quick comparison (currently under development),
show the WG the solutions and their summarized properties, and
make a consensus call.

[cut]
 > I intend to do in depth technical review of both and ask some folks
 > I know out of the IETF building mobile networks now for products with
> MIPv6 who want to be anonymous to help me review it as ghost persons,
 > and I am building some to of course, so I have a bias clearly.
 > Possibly there is a compromise and integration of ideas here.

Yes there's a compromise possible, but I think we should look at
whether either is acceptable to the WG.  Your review would be
particularly welcome.  Thursday may help clarify which document to
review (but it may take a couple of weeks to get the consensus call
comleted, if there's no clear sense of the room).

> assume we can get this right?

Personally, I'd like to get the WG document drafted in the coming
month, so we've got a chance to get the documents finished this year.

> and I consider it dishonorable if not presented up front immediately.

 From my knowledge no contributor to the discussion of Link
Identification has IPR.  That doesn't mean someone
else couldn't though (same as everything).

People are reminded of the IETF Note Well statement regarding IPR:

http://www.ietf.org/overview.html

Greg