Hello Charlie Please see below
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charlie Perkins <[email protected]> > Sent: jeudi 10 janvier 2019 23:50 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [6lo] Link Local address and 6BBR > > Hello Pascal, > > I think that actually calling the 6BBRs to be an anycast group gets into > matters > about anycast operation and security that would represent an unnecessary > burden. For one thing, we would need an anycast address for the 6BBRs. RFC > 7094 lays out some considerations for anycast and if we wanted to go that way > it would probably be appropriate to make a section of the draft about it. > Or, if > you mean that every Registered Address would appear to be an anycast > address on the backbone, then that seems to be a new use for anycast and > might entail some unexpected consequences. [PT>] Well, my answer to you would be what you just said below. We call them anycast and do nothing about it. It may be that more than one 6BBR answers? So what ? > > Regarding nearly simultaneous registrations from the same Registering Node -- > is this really a problem? If the 6LN sends out a NS and gets multiple > answers, > the 6LN should just pick one of them, and not register to all of them at the > same time. > [PT>] Exactly. Thus my conclusion to call that anycast and not do any arbitration : ) For now I left the primary text in as is... I'll send you a new update before the week end, Pascal > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > On 1/9/2019 10:51 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > Hello Charlie > > > > When a node registers to multiple 6BBR the registered address is really like > an anycast address on the backbone. Anycast handling is a bit under-specified > in ND in general. And this is not the place to solve that problem, thus our > current discussion. > > > > Note that first registration as you proposed is a bit hard to achieve. A > > node > may move and register to more than one 6BBR at roughly the same instant. > The TID will be the same. A race condition where the NS(DAD) cross on the > backbone is likely and creates an anycast situation anyway. > > > > When present the 6LBR on the backbone may sort it out but the protocol > elements for that resolution are missing. > > > > My suggestion is to mention that one can register to more than one 6BBR > and that the address is to be treated as an anycast address on the backbone, > the exact details out of scope - removing the concept of primary which would > be a welcome simplification for the IESG review. > > > > The caveat is that the NA(EARO) will have to carry the real information as > opposed to being obfuscated, to the different 6LBRs can recognize parallel > registrations and ignore the conflict. > > > > Does that work for you ? > > > > Pascal > > > >> Le 10 janv. 2019 à 07:33, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> > >> Hello Michael > >> > >> I agree with the simplest, and I’m happy with the resolution to say that > >> link > local can be proxied in bridging mode but the scope for uniqueness is the > collection of links covered by the 6LBR. > >> > >> I also agree that it is not necessarily the most common configuration but > >> it > appears to be needed for some .11 configurations. > >> > >> All the best! > >> > >> Pascal > >> > >>> Le 9 janv. 2019 à 20:27, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >>> > >>> > >>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> LL traffic is likely mDNS traffic and/or DNS-SD traffic. > >>> I don't think it's useful to pretend it's a single subnet for the > >>> purposes of making that work. > >>> > >>>> * Make the scope of uniqueness for a Link Local Address the > >>>> collection of links covered by a 6LBR (easy, no change in the spec) > >>> seems simplest. > >>> > >>>> What do people think? > >>> I think it's too much thinking. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software > Works > >>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
