Dear all :

We are ready to publish draft 10 for the backbone router and ask for WGLC, but 
for one pending issue that was raised during the internal review between 
authors on the 6BBR draft.

The initial intention was not to cover Link Local addresses at all, since the 
multilink subnet is made of different links and the 6BBR is a L3 box that 
isolates them. This is true for a routing proxy, but not exactly right for a 
bridging proxy, which is really a layer-3 switch with MAC layer bridging 
continuity on the data path.

But doing so, we bar Link Local traffic that could have happened between nodes 
attached to different 6BBRs, e.g., in a Wi-Fi environment where the 6BBRs can 
be collocated with APs and maybe operating as Bridging Proxies. The proposal on 
the table is thus to proxy ND for Link Local addresses in the case of a 
bridging proxy. The registration and proxy operation would be the same as for a 
Global Address, but there's at least one caveat.

Consider the flow in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-09#section-3.1. The 
EDAR/EDAC exchange with the 6LBR would contain the Link Local address as 
opposed to a Global Address, but the EDAR/ EDAC does not give an indication of 
a link ID. If the 6LBR is on-link then that's not an issue but if we place it 
farther away, we could detect collision that would be a false positive for link 
local addresses used in different MLSNs served by a same 6LBR.

There are a number of possibilities to solve this:

  *   A new ND option in the DAR/DAC to indicate a Link ID (complex to specify, 
setup and deploy)
  *   Make the scope of uniqueness for a Link Local Address the collection of 
links covered by a 6LBR (easy, no change in the spec)
  *   Indicate the MLSN prefix (e.g., in the source address of the EDAR) and 
make that MLSN the scope of uniqueness for a Link Local Address (must force the 
6BBR to source the DAR with an address in the subnet)

What do people think?

Pascal




_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

Reply via email to