On 3/3/11 5:07 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:
Hi all
Recently Anders pointed out the need for the "Advertize on Behalf"
flag in an Address Registration Option (ARO).
We would not have needed this flag if only a host could send a
unicast NS containing an ARO. However, the way I read Section 6.5.5
in nd-15, a 6lowpan router (6LR) can also send a unicast NS to
another 6lowpan router. This means that a registered neighbor cache
entry (NCE) in a 6LR could refer to either a host or another 6LR. So,
how does a 6LR know that a registered NCE belongs to an attached host
and it should advertize reachability to this host in the routing
protocol, such as RPL, it is running?
The proposed flag will solve this problem. A host would set
"Advertize on behalf" flag when it sends an ARO inside a unicast NS
message, whereas a 6LR wont.
I was wondering if ND authors could comment on this.
I didn't see anybody else comment, so let me try.
I don't know what assumptions RPL makes in particular, but if we are
talking about a general case of a routing protocol, I don't see why
there would be a need to tell a difference between a host sending an ARO
and a router (which might be initializing and haven't yet enabled
routing and forwarding) sending an ARO.
In both cases I'd assume that the unicast address that is registered is
something that should be reachable, hence it makes sense advertising
reachability to that address.
If this isn't the case, then a routing protocol would typically find out
about its neighboring routers IP addresses, and from that it can decide
to treat those IP addresses differently than the addresses assigned to
hosts.
Erik
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
