Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:28:52PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: >> But, no point in advertising in GRASP (over an ACP) an objective that >> only be satisfied by going to the dataplane to do IPv4.
> ASA would use the ACP (IPv6) to coordinate amongst each other for some
> autonomic function, BUT: The objective data/parameters they exchange
> would often be about their nodes data-plane addresses, which will often
> be IPv4. For example i create an "Auto-IP-Multicast AF", then the ASA
> would announce their data-plane IPv4 addresses for e.g.: RP election or
> the like.
yes, but that would be in the negotiation about that ASA (which is new work
at this point), and in which one could use RFC9164.
What I understand is Brian suggesting that we change RFC8992, section 5.1,
5.2, so that instead of:
prefval /= pref6val
pref6val = [version6, length, ?prefix]
version6 = 6
length = 0..128 ; requested or offered prefix length
prefix = bytes .size 16 ; offered prefix in binary format
prefval /= pref4val
pref4val = [version4, length4, ?prefix4]
version4 = 4
length4 = 0..32 ; requested or offered prefix length
prefix4 = bytes .size 4 ; offered prefix in binary format
we'd plug in RFC9164.
(Section 6.1 could also be revised)
As far as I can see, we could trivially augment prefval with a tagged item
there. Is it worth doing? I don't think so.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
