On 13/07/2017 21:40, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK, I'm getting there. More in line: > > >> 1) Registrar accepts any Lx1 as local. There is no precedent in v6 > >> APIs to open such a socket, but this actually supported on many > >> platforms. It's used for nasty stuff like transparent application > >> layer proxies, forced HTTP proxying, and the like. > > > I think there's a more subtle way to look at it. When the registrar > > receives a protocol 41 packet from a new ACP address, it conceptually > > synthesises a new virtual interface and assigns Lx1 as its link local > > address. On that interface, things would look normal. Thus RFC2473: > > I can buy this. > It argues that the Proxy should send a gratuitous packet to the Registrar to > prime that virtual interface. An ICMP echo request perhaps.
Or a GRASP M_NOOP, designed for such purposes! > How can we document this well? I think it has to be spelled out almost at the pseudocode level. We had to spell out the encap/decap behaviour for 6to4 in some detail, and that was just about the only bit of 6to4 that never created trouble ;-). There are various encap/decap specs of that kind, and the NAT64 stuff also goes into horrible detail... Brian > > >> 3) We have the Registrar tell the proxy an Lx value to use. I chose > >> to put this option into the protocol, because we can always set Lx= > >> Lanycast in the future, and perhaps we can set it to :: if we want > >> case (1). > > > I like this least of all. What happens if there are multiple > > registrars? And when a proxy node comes up as a pledge, it must give > > itself a LL address on each interface before it even tries to perform > > its own BRSKI, and before it looks for its own proxy and joins the > > Yeah, you are right, this doesn't work if there are multiple registrars. > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
