Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > So... how is this supposed to work:
> RPL-Root
> |
> rtr ... ... rtr1 rtr2 ... rtr10
> | | |
> ---+----+---+---+++++---+----- LAN
> |
> rtrX
> I am on rtrX and wonder, which (subset) of the 10 routers rtr1...rtr10
> on the LAN to build ACP channels to, right ?
Yes, that's right.
> Are you telling me i should break confidentiality and export some RPL
> parameter from inside the ACP into DULL GRASP so that i would know
> everybody but rtr1 suxx and won't give me a direct connection to the
> root ?
Yes. We are doing this in RFC9032.
> Or else should i randomnly hope that my packets do not have to travel
> across the LAN because i connect to rtr10, rtr10 itself decided to
> connect to rtr9, ... and all the way to rtr2 connecting to rtr1 ?
Yes, sure, but with a fan-out of 3, log_3 10 = 2.09590327.
So you'd expect that you need to visit three routers at most.
> Of course this is a pathological setup, e.g.: i think in actual DC
> networks withso many paths we just for switches to be ACP enabled as
> opposed tohaving big, dumb LANs. AFAIK, all the switches support L3,
> Any of the L2 connectivity sounds more like a service to the hosts, not
> a limit to the switch hardware.
We need to have a sensible path towards that; so the ACP has to be useful on
"day one".... in the cabinet of systems situation, I see the ACP has being
the ideal network for the server BMCs.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
