Subject: Re: RE: [netlmm] Is DAD needed for MN-HoA in PMIPv6

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:55:24 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Kalin,
  Please see inline.

Regards,

Behcet
----- Original Message ----
From: Kalin Getov <[email-masked]>
To: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2007 7:34:40 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [netlmm] Is DAD needed for MN-HoA in PMIPv6

   Hello Sri, Ashuntosh...

sorry for jumping into this discussion, only to clarify.

As in rfc2462, the link-local and global address config can be started in parallel. If the Per-MN prefix model guarantees the global address uniqueness I think the MAG should(could) block the start of DAD for the global address per flag set in the RA sent to the MN. IMO, there should be a possibility to avoid DAD in the default functionality of PMIP as this is one of the advantages of the Per-MN prefix model.

[behcet] I don't know where you're getting this? There is no such thing. Per-MN prefix model is needed due to the multilink subnet issues discussed in Dave Thaler's draft ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues-03.txt
For implications on DAD, please refer to http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
Section 9.2 states the conditions that should be met in order to skip DAD.

  After successfully getting the HNP, the MAG sends event triggered (not waiting for RtSol from the MN or timers) an RA to the MN with a flag set, that points to the MN to skip the DAD for the global address. Is this behaviour acceptable?

(the link-local address uniqueness can still be checked in parallel)

Thanks, Kalin

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm