RE: Zero Address Set

hi jari, 

i am not sure that there is sufficient interest for this functionality. i am
still not quite sure that we properly understand this issue. i again thought
about it and think that technically we need to provide two things: 

- temporarily suspend dead peer detection (or path connectivity test) 
- drop traffic (since it cannot be delivered to the end host anyway) 

ciao
hannes
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Montag, 06. Dezember 2004 22:00
> To: Bill Sommerfeld; Tschofenig Hannes
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Mobike] Zero Address Set
> 
> I guess the key question here is whether there's enough "bang 
> for the buck" in this function for it to be included in 
> MOBIKE. Earlier we didn't see that many people interested, 
> but now we have some. In any case, we need to consider the following:
> 
> - The benefit this feature offers is about "being
>    a good citizen" (as you Bill put it) and not send
>    unnecessary packets when we know the other end
>    is down. Nevertheless, this is not a functional
>    benefit in the sense that nothing breaks if we
>    don't have it; just that extra packets are sent.
> 
> - We know we can not use this feature in all cases
>    when the other end is down. We don't always know
>    we are going outside coverage.
> 
> - We know there's some practical limits to how long
>    this condition can be held and still be considered
>    useful, such as applications on top starting to
>    get timeouts.
> 
> - There may be some additional complexity for MOBIKE.
>    For instance, assume A and B are talking to each other
>    and that A now informs B that its offline. Now,
>    normally in MOBIKE if B moves it can tell A immediately.
>    But if zero-address set is supported then B must
>    be able to queue this notification. And if all of
>    B's addresses got changed, the situation is not
>    recoverable.
> 
> --Jari
>