Subject: Re: [16ng] Subnet Model Analysis for 16ng

From: Heejin Jang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:05:36 +0000 (GMT)

Hi,

Thanks for the DT's effort on it.

I have some comments on it.

1.

In case of shared & ethernet-like model, the periodical RAs may

make all of the dormant nodes awake at the same time, which

will cause 802.16e signaling messges for paging and power consumption of
all nodes

just for getting RAs.

So, how about inserting to 3.1.4.7& 3.3.4.7 (changes on router implementation)

so that RA's lifetime could be set to infinite value, or, 0xffff?

2.

in 3.2.4.5

"The AR can simply send link local multicast, for example unsolicited

Router Advertisements, and the BS can filter them out"

=> If AR sends RAs to announce some parameters such as the advertised
prefix,

it should not be filtered by BS. How BS can
differentiate this case?

So, I prefer that AR advertises RAs only when necessary
without periodical RAs, and BS allows RAs.

3.

in 3.1.4.4.

"All MSs send the packets to the AR irrespective of
the destination and scope of the IPv6 address."

=>  There could be a loopback message or decapsulation within MN
such as MIPv6.

"MSs send all the packets which are not destined to itself to the AR
irrespective of the destination

and scope of the IPv6 address." may be better.

Some comments could be considered when solution document is made.

Thanks.

-- Regards,

Heejin Jang

_______________________________________________
16ng mailing list
[email-masked]
http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: "Syam Madanapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:32:37 +0530

Hi Heejin,

> will cause 802.16e signaling messges for paging and power consumption of all
> nodes
> just for getting RAs.

The current maximum possible interval for periodic RAs is 30 minutes.
The infinite value has not been defined for the router lifetime. You may
be interested to look at the following draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanapalli-ipv6-periodic-rtr-advts-00.txt
And there is a good discussion going on in IPv6 WG mailing list, no
conclusion has been made yet.

>      it should not be filtered by BS. How BS can differentiate this case?

Yes, I think it should be corrected.

>
>    So, I prefer that AR advertises RAs only when necessary without
> periodical RAs, and BS allows RAs.

The current IPv6 spec requires periodic RAs. Also removing periodic
RAs altogether may have adverse effect if the link contains many hosts.
May be we should look for increasing the interval.

> 3.
>
> in 3.1.4.4.
>
>    "All MSs send the packets to the AR irrespective of the destination and
> scope of the IPv6 address."
>
> =>  There could be a loopback message or decapsulation within MN such as
> MIPv6.
>

Yep, thanks.

Syam