The RS/RA confirms reachability with the router that send
the RA. Even if
NETLMM is not in use, there is no guarantee that you have
reachability with
the old default router (it is possible, for example, that it
may have been
taken offline) in the absence of an RA response. So the MN
is better off
changing to the new router if it wants to ensure
reachability regardless of
whether NETLMM is being used.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mohan.Parthasarathy nokia.com>
To: <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>; <vidyanqualcomm.com>;
<gerardo.giarettatelecomitalia.it>; <chvogttm.uka.de>
Cc: <netlmmngnet.it>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Default Router in NETLMM (was RE: [netlmm] New
I-D: Security
Threats to NETLMM)
>
>No, that is exactly right.
>
>The only issue is the details. NUD is performed using
NS/NA
>and typically has a latency of seconds, according to RFC
2164.
>DNA is performed using RS/RA, triggered by an L2 event,
and
>the latency is typically only as much as the RTT between
the
>MN and AR, plus a minimal amount of router processing
time
>(except in cases of congestion).
>
Even if you do RS/RA exchange, why would the old router
information
be removed ?
-mohan
> jak
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Mohan.Parthasarathynokia.com>
>To: <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>; <vidyanqualcomm.com>;
><gerardo.giarettatelecomitalia.it>;
<chvogttm.uka.de>
>Cc: <netlmmngnet.it>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:17 AM
>Subject: RE: Default Router in NETLMM (was RE: [netlmm]
New
>I-D: Security Threats to NETLMM)
>
>
>Ok, i will read it.
>
>In NETLMM, when you switch access routers, DNA will
conclude
>that you have not switched links and all the information
that
>you gathered on the old link will be left as it is i.e
the old
>information will still be kept on the hosts. So, i must
be
>missing something..
>
>-mohan
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext James Kempf [mailto:kempfdocomolabs-usa.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:48 AM
>>To: Parthasarathy Mohan (Nokia-NET/MtView);
vidyanqualcomm.com;
>>gerardo.giarettatelecomitalia.it;
>>chvogttm.uka.de
>>Cc: netlmmngnet.it
>>Subject: Re: Default Router in NETLMM (was RE:
[netlmm] New
>>I-D: Security Threats to NETLMM)
>>
>>Please take a look at Julian and Sathya's draft on
the MN-AR
>interface.
>>They describe how DNA can be used. Neither NUD nor
fixing the MAC
>>address across routers is necessary if the node uses
DNA and switches
>>default routers when it receives an RA having a new
MAC address in it.
>>
>> jak
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <Mohan.Parthasarathynokia.com>
>>To: <vidyanqualcomm.com>; <gerardo.giarettatelecomitalia.it>;
>><chvogttm.uka.de>
>>Cc: <netlmmngnet.it>; <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>
>>Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 3:25 PM
>>Subject: RE: Default Router in NETLMM (was RE:
[netlmm] New
>>I-D: Security Threats to NETLMM)
>>
>>
>>Vidya,
>>
>>When you handover and change the default router,
first NUD
>has to kick
>>in detect that the old default router is not
reachable
>anymore. But the
>>old router itself will not be removed until you stop
hearing RAs
>>(depends on router lifetime) from the router. So,
till you completely
>>remove the old AR from the system, it can be
disruptive. By just
>>maintaining one virtual default router (IP and MAC
address)
>across all
>>links, you don't have to worry about this part. But
then if
>you have to
>>support multiple MAPs, then there are some
additional complexities..
>>
>>-mohan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: netlmm-adminngnet.it
[mailto:netlmm-adminngnet.it] On
>Behalf Of
>>ext Narayanan, Vidya
>>Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:57 PM
>>To: Giaretta Gerardo; Christian Vogt
>>Cc: netlmmngnet.it; James Kempf
>>Subject: Default Router in NETLMM (was RE: [netlmm]
New I-D:
>>Security Threats to NETLMM)
>>
>>
>>Hi Gerardo,
>>
>>This is something we are currenlty discussing in the
Design
>Team, even
>>though it is part of the MN-AR discussion. Since in
a NETLMM
>domain the
>>MN does not change the IP address, the NETLMM domain
may be seen as a
>>single subnet and therefore the default router seen
by the MN may not
>>change. But, it really depends on the MN-AR
interface, imo: one
>>possibility, as you mention, is that all ARs in a
NETLMM domain mimic
>>the MAP. I still don't have a clear opinion on
this, though.
>>What do you
>>think?
>>
>>--Gerardo
>>
>><VN> It seems simpler and more scalable to let
the AR be the default
>>gateway. The important aspect is to prevent the IP
address of the MN
>>from changing - I see the default gateway change as
not so disruptive.
>>
>>Is there a reason why it would make sense for the
MAP to be
>the default
>>gateway?
>>
>>-Vidya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmmngnet.it
https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
|