Subject: [DNA] Issue 3: Do we need landmark Y/N bit?

From: Sathya Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:52:09 -0500

Issue: The current text doesn't use the 'N' bit - because we don't want 
to waste space on the RA including a No response. The same functionality 
of 'Y' bit can be achieved by just including the  landmark prefix in a 
PIO or a LPO.

Agreement at the meeting: We remove the Y/N bits from the landmark. This 
changes the semantics of a landmark in the RS from a question to just a 
statement, the host includes a prefix in the RS to let the router know 
which link it thinks it is currently on - the router confirms it by 
responding with a RA containing the same prefix or informs the host that 
its thinking is wrong by sending a RA not including the particular 
prefix, but with as much information as possible for the host to 
reconfigure itself.

Any objections to the change?

- Sathya

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:12:28 +0900

> Any objections to the change?

no objection. I agree.

JinHyeock