{note subject line change}
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 3.1.1. Proxy Discovery Protocol Details
>>
>> The proxy uses the GRASP M_FLOOD mechanism to announce itself. This
>> announcement is done with the same message as the ACP announcement
>> detailed in [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
bc> Can we make it:
bc> This announcement SHOULD be done with the same message...
bc> That's only an optimisation, really.
Agreed. I think we all agree that the announcement of the proxy
(and the search for ACP peers) is something that M_FLOOD is good for.
bc> (After the discussion back in Berlin, we added a feature to
bc> M_FLOOD to allow arbitrary locators to be attached to a given
bc> flood message. I thought that was what the BRSKI team wanted
bc> at that time. Seems not.)
yes, we asked for two locators to be attached to a flood message so that we
could announce ACP and Proxy in the same message. Given the experience
with rate limiting that you experienced, this seems doubly prudent since
this M_FLOOD will occur outside any ACP, and will have to traverse any
number of layer-2 devices.
(This will be worse at the beginning of ANIMA deployment, as the layer-2
devices will not be ACP aware, but will get better as more devices get with
the program...)
So, let's leave this part, which is
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-06#section-3.1.1
As there is no dispute about it, I think.
If it should be named AN_PROXY, that's fine.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
