Subject: Re: [netlmm] Last hop link-local behavior

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:53:03 -0800 (PST)

It looks like even on a shared link we are going to have to go with PtP link semantics as described in Sec. 6.3 second paragraph of the draft-sgundave. This could be inline with netlmm mn-ar draft but I am not sure, certainly the email exchanges stated opinions in this direction. So link-local neighbors only at the home link.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:08:36 AM
Subject: [netlmm] Last hop link-local behavior

All,
This is a topic on which we have had a lot of discussion on the list. I
tried collecting offlist feedback on potential problems with having last
hop shared link-local behavior and have been unable to get any useful
pointers to what is really broken with that model. If the shared
link-local semantics spanned the entire NETLMM domain, it is obviously
problematic and we've all agreed that is not required. However, at this
point, shared link-local behavior on the last hop (between the MN and
the AR) seems reasonable to support. 

I suggest that we document clearly that this means that the AR is
serving as the default router and that upon movement, the MN will lose
all its link-local neighbors and that may impact some applications
relying on the link-local reachability of some of the neighbors. This is
especially true if the applications are unaware of the link change (as
would typically be the case when the global IP address remains the same)
and hence doesn't expect all the link-local neighbors going away. 

Thoughts? 

Thanks,
Vidya

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

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

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:47:55 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> It looks like even on a shared link we are going to have to go with PtP link semantics as described in Sec. 6.3 second paragraph of the draft-sgundave. This could be inline with netlmm mn-ar draft but I am not sure, certainly the email exchanges stated
opinions in this direction. So link-local neighbors only at the home link.

Sure. But, if you consider the AR as a neighbor, the
mobile is loosing the neighbor as it moves from link
to link.

Sri

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:24:22 +0100

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> It looks like even on a shared link we are going to have to go with PtP 
> link semantics

Not sure what is PtP semantics and trying not to stir too much on this.

Could it be that the behaviour of the link-local address is shared link 
semantics but the behaviour of the global address assigned by dhcp is 
ptp semantics...

Alex