Liyizhou <liyiz...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your careful reading. It takes me some time to have some
> more thinking on the draft.
> You are right that most devices have management interface with L3
> capability.
> The difficulty we met was when IPv4 is in use the management interface
> needs to get to DHCP server first to get its IP. DHCP is a BUM traffic.
> RFC3927 defined a self-configured IPv4 address, but AFAIK it is
> implemented in some host OS but not on network nodes. The expected
> L2ACP in my mind has the function of L2 loop-free reachability before
> the management interface of the nodes obtains IP via DHCP.
I feel that we've been over this many times... it's even in RFC8994, and
Brian has written a lot about this.
It seems that you are stuck on the 40 year old IPv4 model of doing layer-2
tricks.
> I understand an IPv6 link-local address can be used for ACP even when
> the data plane is IPv4. I tried to talk to some engineers/admins if
> they would like to use it in such a way. Some think it is ok.
Clearly there is a lot of reluctance, and there is really no words I can add
to change that.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
