On 30/03/2017 09:16, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > Where you want to plug in an ASA (autonomic service agent) is anywhere
>     > you want plug in some intelligence to govern an automatic process.
>     > Intelligence, for example, to figure out what to do if the user side
>     > asks for a /48 and the ISP offers a /60. So the ASA might negotiate
>     > a compromise at /56 and then PD does its thing. But we didn't want
>     > to exclude a scenario where PD isn't available, hence a flag is
>     > included.
> 
> To put this is pseudo-(monty)pythonesq:
> 
> Customer: Hi, I'd like to buy a parrot.
> Store: Would you like a Blue Parrot or a Red Parrot?
> Customer: I'd like a Blue Parrot.
> Store: I'm sorry, but we don't sell Parrots.

No, it's not really Pythonesque but negotiation is allowed to fail.
 
> I just don't see the point of the ASA here.

There's already a thing called an HNCP agent. Why couldn't
it be enhanced to negotiate with an upstream ASA for resources?

> If DHCPv6-PD isn't available, then it's not a compliant ISP connection
> (RFC7204) and it's outside of the scope of homenet to begin with.

No disagreement; the idea was simply to ensure that the GRASP objective
can communicate that PD is or isn't available. If PD is required in
a particular scenario then that parameter will always be set True.
 
>     > About the domain boundary:
> 
>     >> I don't think that the ISP can trust to have code controlled by end 
> users
>     >> running in their ACP domain.
> 
>     > Right. But in ISP-provided CEs this could presumably be fixed, because
>     > that code would be locked down. In a store-bought CE, isn't this exactly
>     > where BRSKI will help us? There is certainly an issue for home-made CE
>     > images, but they will be a tiny minority of users.
> 
> No, BRSKI doesn't help the ISP feel safe that the code I am running
> on my store-bought CE won't attempt to mess with their network.

Yes, I see that. (Unless of course we get into much more complex validation
and authorization stuff, which seems unlikely to fly.)

  Brian

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to