The draft currently has a Landmark option that is included in RSs, and a Landmark Not On Link Option that is included in RAs for negative responses to Landmark Options. Why not just include a "NAck" flag in a Landmark Option and allow it to be included in RAs for the same purpose. Also, in unicast "yes" answers, if the answer is yes, then the PIO is not really needed and a Landmark Option without the proposed NAck flag would be sufficient. This way a unicast answer to an RS with an LO would always be an RA with an LO (which identifies the prefix in question) and a flag would indicate whether it's a positive or negative answer. Any support for abandoning LNOLO in favour of LO with a NAck flag but with the same semantics? Any support for using an LO instead of a PIO for a unicast yes?
Brett,
I don't think either of these are needed. The host can figure it out.
jak
Brett Pentland wrote: > The draft currently has a Landmark option that is included in RSs, > and a Landmark Not On Link Option that is included in RAs for > negative responses to Landmark Options. > > Why not just include a "NAck" flag in a Landmark Option and allow it > to be included in RAs for the same purpose. Also, in unicast "yes" > answers, if the answer is yes, then the PIO is not really needed > and a Landmark Option without the proposed NAck flag would be > sufficient. > > This way a unicast answer to an RS with an LO would always be > an RA with an LO (which identifies the prefix in question) and a > flag would indicate whether it's a positive or negative answer. > > Any support for abandoning LNOLO in favour of LO with a NAck flag > but with the same semantics? > Any support for using an LO instead of a PIO for a unicast yes? I think both of these make sense. It's pretty concise and can be described as the host asking "am I still <here>" and the router answering "you are still <here>", or "you are not <here> + information you might want" Erik
So a yes would be the requested prefix, and a no would be the list of avilable prefixes? Brett. James Kempf wrote: > Brett, > > I don't think either of these are needed. The host can figure it out. > jak > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Pentland" <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au> > To: <dna-dt@eng.monash.edu.au> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:48 AM > Subject: [DNA-DT] Solution1, Issue 11: LNOLO? > > > >> The draft currently has a Landmark option that is included in RSs, >> and a Landmark Not On Link Option that is included in RAs for >> negative responses to Landmark Options. >> >> Why not just include a "NAck" flag in a Landmark Option and allow it >> to be included in RAs for the same purpose. Also, in unicast "yes" >> answers, if the answer is yes, then the PIO is not really needed >> and a Landmark Option without the proposed NAck flag would be >> sufficient. >> >> This way a unicast answer to an RS with an LO would always be >> an RA with an LO (which identifies the prefix in question) and a >> flag would indicate whether it's a positive or negative answer. >> >> Any support for abandoning LNOLO in favour of LO with a NAck flag >> but with the same semantics? >> Any support for using an LO instead of a PIO for a unicast yes?
Right.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Pentland" <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>
To: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: <dna-dt@eng.monash.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA-DT] Solution1, Issue 11: LNOLO?
>> So a yes would be the requested prefix, and a no would be the list
>> of avilable prefixes?
>>
>> Brett.
>>
>> James Kempf wrote:
>
>>> > Brett,
>>> >
>>> > I don't think either of these are needed. The host can figure it out.
>>> >
>>> > jak
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Brett Pentland" <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>
>>> > To: <dna-dt@eng.monash.edu.au>
>>> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:48 AM
>>> > Subject: [DNA-DT] Solution1, Issue 11: LNOLO?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>>> >>The draft currently has a Landmark option that is included in RSs,
>>>> >>and a Landmark Not On Link Option that is included in RAs for
>>>> >>negative responses to Landmark Options.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Why not just include a "NAck" flag in a Landmark Option and allow it
>>>> >>to be included in RAs for the same purpose. Also, in unicast "yes"
>>>> >>answers, if the answer is yes, then the PIO is not really needed
>>>> >>and a Landmark Option without the proposed NAck flag would be
>>>> >>sufficient.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>This way a unicast answer to an RS with an LO would always be
>>>> >>an RA with an LO (which identifies the prefix in question) and a
>>>> >>flag would indicate whether it's a positive or negative answer.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Any support for abandoning LNOLO in favour of LO with a NAck flag
>>>> >>but with the same semantics?
>>>> >>Any support for using an LO instead of a PIO for a unicast yes?
I think we have resoultion here. Brett Pentland wrote: > The draft currently has a Landmark option that is included in RSs, > and a Landmark Not On Link Option that is included in RAs for > negative responses to Landmark Options. > > Why not just include a "NAck" flag in a Landmark Option and allow it > to be included in RAs for the same purpose. Also, in unicast "yes" > answers, if the answer is yes, then the PIO is not really needed > and a Landmark Option without the proposed NAck flag would be > sufficient. > > This way a unicast answer to an RS with an LO would always be > an RA with an LO (which identifies the prefix in question) and a > flag would indicate whether it's a positive or negative answer. > > Any support for abandoning LNOLO in favour of LO with a NAck flag > but with the same semantics? > Any support for using an LO instead of a PIO for a unicast yes? There seems to be support for both now.
| Topic DNASoln1Issue011 . { Edit | Attach | Ref-By | Printable | Diffs | r1.4 | > | r1.3 | > | r1.2 | More } |
|
Revision r1.4 - 22 Apr 2005 - 02:31 GMT - Main.BrettPentland Parents: WebHome > DNASolution1 |
Copyright © 1999-2003 by the contributing authors.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. |