Toerless, I am preparing a document on Operational Considerations for
Registrars: "Operational Considerations for BRSKI Registrar"

I was reviewing section 8.1, on ACP connect.

   To allow for auto-configuration of NMS hosts, the ACP edge device and
   NMS hosts using ACP connect SHOULD support [RFC4191].  The ACP edge
   device should announce the whole ACP ULA prefix via that standards
   Router Advertisement signaling option.  It should also announce the
   default route (::/) with a lifetime of 0.  In result, NMS hosts
   supporting RFC4191 will route the ACP prefix via the ACP edge device,
   but will not route the default route via it.

I don't disagree with anything you say, btw.
I think that maybe some explanation is in order here though.
I recognize the document is in it's final stage, but maybe a word or two
could be added here.
First, what is the "whole ACP ULA prefix"?  Is it the /48?  I think we
could say so.
I will send a pull request once I finish writing.

Second, if 6.10.2 defines the base scheme, and it's 8+40+2=50, why in
6.10.3 does it
say "51*" above the "(base scheme)"?  Is that a typo?

It seems that we could advertise a 6.10.3 non-zero "Zone" on the NOC ACP
Connect "LAN"?

It seems that we ought to sending a Routing Information Option for the
/48, and a PIO for the specific /64 above.
We might want to set L=0 here. 
I understand that we advertise ::/0 with lifetime=0 because of RFC4191
section 3 analysis.
I don't know if type A,B,or C hosts are common out there, I think that
rfc4191 is widely implemented at this point, so I suspect most hosts are
type C at this point.

Generally, I think that NOC hosts should not autoconfigure (SLAAC or
stable private address) addresses, as they ought to be manually
configured.  I am open to discussion here.  I do think that they should
listen to RAs for the ACP route so that we can have multiple routers, etc.
*
I will be making a few more specific recommendations in my document in
line with the view above.

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to