Subject: Re: Issue 25 (was: RE: [netlmm] New Issues #22, #23, #24, #25, #26 and #27)

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:06:13 +0200

Fred,

[Sorry for being so late, I've been away from email]

On Thursday 11 May 2006 17:54, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > Issue #25: MN-AR interface specifying REDIRECT behavior
> > <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/25>
>
> The proposed resolution may not be appropriate for all
> media types. A better resolution would be to simply say:
>
>  "See: (RFC2461(bis), section 2)."

For the record, the proposed resolution is: Specify that an AR SHOULD 
not redirect MNs for on-link destinations.

The draft specifies that the prefix is advertized as off-link so that 
all packets send by MNs goes to their AR. This is meant so that the 
MN perception is that it has a kind of point-to-point link to its AR. 
I don't see how that would not be appropriate for a specific media.

Advertising the prefix as off-link is essential to this draft as it 
avoids most of the issues involved with multi-link subnets.

The point of the proposed resolution is that if the AR sends redirects 
to MNs, it will break the off-link prefix trick because part of the 
nodes under that prefix would appear on-link.

So IMO we should stick to the proposed resolution. Besides, I fail to 
find an example of a media for which it is not appropriate; I think 
this behavior is media independent.

--julien

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