How can mobile IPv6 in the market without at least PS and LMM is still a
discussion which I believe is required and as you know I say use AAAv6
instead of overhead of Ipsec.

Now if you mean we can move in the market as vendors without the IETF I
agree but that has not happened yet.

/jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Alper E. YEGIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:10 PM
To: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pekka Savola
Cc: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Optimistic DAD draft ...


Jim,

> None of us working on this are even clear layer 3 handover will ever 
> work?  Not sure if that matters does it?  Are we talking about the 
> future?

You mean Mobile IPv6? It works.

alper

> 
> Thanks
> /jim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper E. YEGIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Pekka Savola'
> Cc: 'Nick 'Sharkey' Moore'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Optimistic DAD draft ...
> 
> 
> > > > True, but the term 'hand-off' implies a make-before-break 
> > > > process, else the MN is just establishing itself on a new link. 
> > > > Given it
> has
> > > > the opportunity to be aware of multiple links, it can
> > > decide when to
> > > > switch. I am arguing that it complete DAD 'before' it makes that

> > > > decision, not after.
> > > 
> > > I don't think we can consider all "handoffs" as 
> > > 'make-before-break'. There exists some link-layer technologies 
> > > that allow this, but not all have such capability.
> > 
> > Then DAD latency should be the least of the concerns.
> 
> Not really. For example 802.11b (link-layer) handover can take 
> something like 200ms, and DAD would take 1sec on that link. People are

> already working on shrinking link-layer handover latency, and some 
> should do the same for DAD as well.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Completing DAD before handover requires either movement 
> > > anticipation or make-before-break, both of which are not widely 
> > > applicable. Therefore solving DAD latency for general case is a 
> > > valid approach, imo.
> > 
> > My argument is that all MNs anticipate movement, and establish DAD
> > before they really make the move. Yes this will generate some
overhead
> 
> > if the node doesn't move, but that is a minor cost in the grand 
> > scheme
> 
> > of things.
> 
> We cannot assume all MNs can "anticipate movement". Not all 
> link-layers
> have this capability.
> 
> alper
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Tony
> > 
> > > 
> > > alper
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Tony
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:32 PM
> > > > > To: Tony Hain
> > > > > Cc: 'Nick 'Sharkey' Moore'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: RE: Optimistic DAD draft ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Tony Hain wrote:
> > > > > > [...] it would seem the prudent thing for a MN to do is
> > > > > establish DAD
> > > > > > for all candidate prefixes well before it is ready to
> > > start using
> > > > > > them. [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Isn't there a problem with how this could be done, as 
> > > > > currently
> > > > > specified?
> > > > > 
> > > > > One can't perform DAD before being on the link.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nick 
> > > > > > > 'Sharkey' Moore
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:58 PM
> > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > Subject: Optimistic DAD draft ...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > G'day IPng-ers,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > One of the big issues in getting low-latency handovers
> > > > > > > working for IPv6 mobility is the long delay
> > > involved
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > completing DAD.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > One option is to allow the Mobile Node to communicate
> > > while the
> > > > > > > address is still Tentative (optimistically assuming that 
> > > > > > > DAD will succeed), but to adjust its ND / SAA behaviour
> > > in order to
> > > > > > > minimize disruption in case of an address conflict
> > > (and maintain
> > > > > > > correct interoperation with
> > > > > unmodified nodes).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We've kicked the idea around a little on mobile-ip, and 
> > > > > > > I've
> 
> > > > > > > formalized my thoughts into an internet draft,
> > > > > which should
> > > > > > > get published soon.  In the meantime, you can find it at
> > > > > > > <http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/fastho.htm>
> > > > > > > (tentatively titled draft-moore-ipv6-optimistic-dad-00).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >         I'd be interested in your opinions on the
> > > draft, and its
> > > > > > > potential suitability for standards track.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > >         Nick
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > Nick 'Sharkey' Moore                    
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > Research Fellow, CTIE                   Tel: +61 3 9905
3707
> > > > > > > Monash University,  Australia           Fax: +61 3 9905
5358
> 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > > > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> > > > > > > IPng Home Page:                      
> > > > > http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> > > > > > > FTP archive:               
> > > > >        ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> > > > > > > Direct all administrative requests to
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> > > > > > IPng Home Page:                      
> > > http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> > > > > > FTP archive:             
> > >          ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> > > > > > Direct all administrative requests to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties
> surmounted,
> > > > > Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and
> fall"
> > > > > Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of
> > > > > Swords
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> > > > IPng Home Page:
> http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> > > > FTP archive:
> ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> > > > Direct all administrative requests to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to