Subject: RE: [DNA] Revised FRD (Fast Router Discovery) I-D

From: "Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:34:30 +0200

> > I also started wondering how the solution works with SEND and
especially
> > when the timestamp and nonce options are present.

I think it would be worth mentioning somewhere, maybe along with the
sentence:

"the PoA needs to cache a suitable RA, such as 'RA optimized for DNA'
defined in [5]."

that RAs with the SEND nonce option can't be cached while the ones with
timestamps can be cached only for a certain duration of time. Greg seems
to have an idea about a proper duration.

/Tero

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:25:08 +0900

Dear Tero

> > No. We don't think it's desirable for PoA to modify an RA, unless
> > it gets permission from AR.
> 
> Ok. I was just thinking how long PoA should keep an entry in the cache.
> Unlike it the second mail sent later, at this point I was not wondering
> should the lifetime in the cached entry also be decreased.

Sorry, but I have difficulty understanding the above phrase. Kindly 
clarify it more. 

> > Right now, we design the scheme in the simplest way and PoA doesn't
> > manage index entries.
> >
> > Assume there are two routers on a link, AR1 and AR2. First AR1
> > sends RA1 and PoA caches it. Afterwards AR2 sends RA2, then
> > PoA substitutes its cached RA with RA2. This doesn't affect DNA
> > performance as long as both RA1 and RA2 can properly indicate
> > link identity, i.e. RA optimized for DNA.
> 
> Oh, I see. There is only one cached entry instead of multiple entries
> (i.e. RAs from different APs).

Right. Allow me to clarify a little more. 

In 01 version, FRD works with one cached entry. But in later version, 
FRD may be expanded to have multiple entries for better performance. 

> timestamps can be cached only for a certain duration of time. 

Sounds reasonable. I will coin the exact phrases for the 02-version. 
 
Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock