On 18/12/2017 18:09, Toerless Eckert wrote: ...>>>> 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.
No, the text is fine. One GRASP instance per ACP VRF is the normal model. If that needs to be written, it probably belongs in the reference model. FYI: in my GRASP prototype, I did have to include a hack for this situation, so that several instances can run in the same node for testing. Basically it's a hack to avoiding an instance responding to its own discovery messages. That's why the question came up in my mind. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
