Inline
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:25:19AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
>
> I think all my comments have been well handled, so just a few comments
> below:
>
> > xml2rfc turns this reference into:
> >
> > ACP address: An IPv6 address assigned to the ACP node. It is stored
> > in the domain information field of the ACP domain certificate
> > (Paragraph 21).
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yuck. Maybe you can refer to Section 6.1.1 instead, that should work.
Yes, but that would be last resort, i am asking rfc-editor for format
recommendations now.
But given how this is really an RFC formatting issue that we can solve all the
way into RFC editor queue/author review, i sugest we do not let this hold
up progressing the doc now.
> > In the figure 1 example in rfc4007, there is a link-local zone with
> > two interfaces.
>
> Yes. Let's see what people have to say over on 6man. (The loop prevention
> in GRASP will actually work for this case, as far as I can tell; it's
> just a special case of a physical topology loop. I can probably simulate it
> by plugging my Ethernet interface to the back of my wireless hub.)
Well, you played around with it, so you have an idea why i am avoiding
the topic and just wrote "interface" into the adjacency table requirements ;-)
Even if we figure out some more useful details, i would like to punt
those details to a yang model for ANI. That will be a good amount of
work reading up on common yang practices and pre-existing object to use anyhow
*sigh*
> >> A related but more general question:
> >>
> >> If there are multiple GRASP instances in a node (ignoring the DULL case),
> >> does each instance require its own ACP unicast address and its own ACP
> >> security associations? (I hope the answer is "No".)
> >
> > If you had multiple ACPs, i am sure each ACP would have its separate
> > loopback
> > address. These are different addressing domains anyhow, so really no way
> > to avoid this. Even if it would be the same addresses (like having multiple
> > times the same rfc1918 address in different VRFs - counts as different
> > addresses).
>
> Agreed. The case that was bothering me was *one* ACP instance and multiple
> GRASP instances.
No need. If there was anything in the text that would have raised that question,
let me know because i am not sure why that question would come up.
> Thanks for all the work on this.
Thanks for all the review!
Cheers
Toerless
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
