Hi, When reading RFC8990 and draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution, I found RFC8990 allows Flood Synchronization Message (section 2.8.11) to be *unsolicited* but Synchronization Message does not allow so. I guess that's why unsolicited_synch-message is defined in section 5.1 in draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution.
So why not simply allow the synch-message (M_SYNCH) to be sent unsolicitedly instead of define a new message type? It looks like more straight forward. BTW section 5.1 in draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution is quite different from the rest subsections as it defines a new message type and the rest are for objectives. Some re-structure of the subsection titles may make it more self-descriptive. I am trying to figure out what would be the best messages to be used to distribute mapping info from IP address/prefix to access control group IDs as suggested in draft-yizhou-anima-ip-to-access-control-groups. Both the Objective providers (i.e. access authentication point, AAP in this case) and Objective consumers (i.e. policy enforcement point, PEP in this case) are supporting the same ASA/Objective. However, it would be ideal when the Syn message is flooded unsolicitedly, the message is only moving towards the Objective consumers but not the other Objective providers. I had thought the selective flooding can be leveraged here. However current selective flooding seems not quite for this purpose. Consider the following topology, if I understand it correctly, when the selective flood flows from node1 to node 2 and then node 3, it would stop at node 2 if the matching condition fails at node 2. Then even node 3 meets the matching rules, the message would not reach it. Node 1 (ASA 1) --- Node 2(ASA 2)---Node 3(ASA1) Come back to the IP prefix to group id mapping information distribute case, there might be nodes not supporting this specific ASA/objective in between of the objective providers and consumers. It would be expected that the message can pass through such intermediate nodes. Certainly, multiple unicast syn messages can be used since the nodes supporting this objective would have been discovered at the discovery stage. I am wondering if flooding like approach is also a good option here. Thanks, Yizhou
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
