On 13/06/2017 03:38, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> {note subject line change}
>
> Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 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.
I think it does need some work on the way it's described, but I agree,
we are fine in principle on this point.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
