Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Charter Statement/ Updated Internet-Draft on Fast Router Discovery

Hello Jihoon Lee,

> 1. I agree that UDP-based query/response type's signaling is needed in AP
<--> AR part. However, I don't know the reason why UDP-based query/response
type in host <---> access device part is required. In the I-D, a signaling
is needed between laptop and cell phone in order to identify each other's L2
address and generate the appropriated UDP/IP datagram. Isn't it sufficient
for only a simple L2 signal (like the case that host and access device
exists in the same IP node) to notify its link status? The relation between
host and access device is not changed. I think that a different rule needs
to be applied between host and access device.
>

The relation between a host and its access device is equivalent
to the relation between an access point and access router.
In both case, when the entities are separated, there needs to
be a protocol between two for conveying L2 information (i.e., events).

Btw, this is an abstraction.. May not apply to all architectures,
it depends on how the access device and host are connected
to each other. If the access device appears as an IP node
acting as a bridge, then this protocol applies.

> 2. In page 4, there is "A client may periodically send these multicast
Hello messages to keep track of active servers". What do you think about the
Hello message's interval (i.e., default value)?
>

It really depends on how dynamic and reliable the environment is.
This value must be configurable..

> 3. In page 4, "Each registration has a lifetime and must be renewed before
expiration."
> For registration renewal, how is the rule applied? For example, host
issues a new registration request to refresh these active entries at
elapsing 2/3 lifetime. Is it correct?
>

This is also an implementation and configuration choice.
I have seen 1/2 lifetime used for similar purposes...

> 4. You said "a transport mechanism is needed to convey link-layer
triggers". Isn't it sufficient for ICMP or IPv6 extension header/Destination
option header to convey L2 triggers?
>

I really didn't mean defining a new transport protocol like TCP, UDP, etc...
I guess "transport" keyword can be misleading... I meant a carrier, like
defining a protocol "based on" UDP... This is what this protocol is all
about.

> 5. UDP/IP datagram is constricted to 255 TTL. However, I think if a host
moves to another AR's boundary, TTL value will decrease. What do you think
about?
>

This protocol is limited to nodes on the same IP subnet.
Therefore protocol messages would not normally go
beyond routers. If they do, that means there is something wrong.

Thanks Jihoon for the comments. I hope I answered your
questions.

alper

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]>
> To: "JinHyeock Choi" <[email protected]>; "Vernon Schryver"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Charter Statement/
Updated Internet-Draft on Fast Router Discovery
>
>
> > Thanks JinHyeock.
> > There is another draft which is something we should
> > discuss:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yegin-l2-triggers-00.txt
> >
> > This draft proposes a L2 Triggers protocol which can
> > be proposed standard.
> >
> >   I suggest people read this and comment.
> >
> > Thx.
> >
> > --- JinHyeock Choi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > We changed our file name to
> > > draft-jinchoi-l2trigger-fastrd-01.txt
> > > (from draft-jinchoi-l2-frd-01.txt) at editor's
> > > request. Details are like below.
> > >
> > > Title :  Fast Router Discovery with AP Notification
> > > Author(s) :  J. Choi, D. Shin
> > > Filename :  draft-jinchoi-l2trigger-fastrd-01.txt
> > > Pages :  5
> > > Date :  19-Jun-02
> > > URL:
> > >
> >
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jinchoi-l2trigger-fastrd-01.txt
> > >
> > --behcet
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pilc mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
> > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
> > http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/
> >
> >
>


_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/