Issue 3: Do we need landmark Y/N bit?

Issue: The current text doesn't use the 'N' bit - because we
don't want 
to waste space on the RA including a No response. The same
functionality 
of 'Y' bit can be achieved by just including the  landmark
prefix in a 
PIO or a LPO.

Agreement at the meeting: We remove the Y/N bits from the
landmark. This 
changes the semantics of a landmark in the RS from a
question to just a 
statement, the host includes a prefix in the RS to let the
router know 
which link it thinks it is currently on - the router
confirms it by 
responding with a RA containing the same prefix or informs
the host that 
its thinking is wrong by sending a RA not including the
particular 
prefix, but with as much information as possible for the
host to 
reconfigure itself.

Any objections to the change?

- Sathya

> Issue: The current text doesn't use the 'N' bit -
because we don't want
> to waste space on the RA including a No response. The
same functionality
> of 'Y' bit can be achieved by just including the 
landmark prefix in a
> PIO or a LPO.
>
> Agreement at the meeting: We remove the Y/N bits from
the landmark. This
> changes the semantics of a landmark in the RS from a
question to just a
> statement, the host includes a prefix in the RS to let
the router know
> which link it thinks it is currently on - the router
confirms it by
> responding with a RA containing the same prefix or
informs the host that
> its thinking is wrong by sending a RA not including the
particular
> prefix, but with as much information as possible for
the host to
> reconfigure itself.
>
> Any objections to the change?

no objection. I agree.

JinHyeock

Closed.

- Sathya

Sathya Narayanan wrote:

> Issue: The current text doesn't use the 'N' bit -
because we don't
> want to waste space on the RA including a No response.
The same
> functionality of 'Y' bit can be achieved by just
including the 
> landmark prefix in a PIO or a LPO.
>
> Agreement at the meeting: We remove the Y/N bits from
the landmark.
> This changes the semantics of a landmark in the RS from
a question to
> just a statement, the host includes a prefix in the RS
to let the
> router know which link it thinks it is currently on -
the router
> confirms it by responding with a RA containing the same
prefix or
> informs the host that its thinking is wrong by sending
a RA not
> including the particular prefix, but with as much
information as
> possible for the host to reconfigure itself.
>
> Any objections to the change?
>
> - Sathya
>