Subject: [DNA] Usage of DNA

From: Syam Madanapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:11:00 +0530

I think DNA is useful for reactive handoffs, I am not really sure we can 
achieve the seamless

mobility with the reactive handoffs. I think proactive handoff does better 
for seamless mobility.

When FMIPv6 becomes popular, I doubt if we really need the DNA. My 
understanding is that

DNA and FMIPv6 do not complement each other. Please shed some light on this.

Thank you,

Syam

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:46:59 +1000

Hi Syam,

Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> mobility with the reactive handoffs. I think proactive handoff does 
> better for seamless mobility.

DNA is not intended to replace FMIPv6.  Nor is it strictly tied to
mobility: Othewise it would be called "Movement Detection" rather than
"Detecting Network Attachment"  (nifty acronym notwithstanding).

So there are scenarios which aren't strictly mobility or (even if they
are) aren't handover related which may be applicable to DNA.

For example:

radio base-station failure and reselection,
base station movement (such as LEO satellites)
data squirting after device sleeping,  etc.

Also in some types of access networks, there may not be a
predictive FMIPv6 for long time yet.

DNA may well fill a role supporting "sufficiently fast"
(though not seamless) handovers within those networks.

> DNA and FMIPv6 do not complement each other. Please shed some light on 

FMIPv6 is a mechanism which can make use of prediction, but also has
a reactive scenario for when prediction fails or is unavailable.

Rapid determination that the link is not what was intended (using DNA)
should help even hosts with FMIPv6.

You are right in saying that a successful FMIPv6 handover may be able
to remove the need for DNA on a particular base-station handover.
One of the sections of the DNA hosts BCP has been intended to include
details of interactions with RFC experimental protocols such as FMIPv6
and CARD.

If a clarifying statement about that would be useful, then we can start
working on the text.

Does this answer your query?

Greg

---

From: Syam Madanapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 16:55:59 +0530

Hi Greg,

I think it is clear now for me about the DNA. I asked this question
because the DNAv6 solution looks pretty heavy and complex (this
is my current understanding, please do not ask me for the simpler solution)
and felt not much useful if it is not complementing/aligned towards FMIPv6
and CARD.

I just looked into the DNAv6 BCP for Hosts, Appendix C and D are
empty now, I think it is worth filling these sections.

Thank you,
Syam

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:34:23 +1000

Hi Syam,

> and felt not much useful if it is not complementing/aligned towards FMIPv6

Any specific comments on the solution may help to clarify complexities.

> empty now, I think it is worth filling these sections.

Thanks for the feedback.

We'll look into it.

Greg