HI Brian: You offer a pretty good summary, to which I would add as such a solution would be highly likely to be limited to 4K VLANs (as it is implemented as a flat Ethernet technology layer). As soon as I add an overlay to address this limitation, a chunk of the surrounding rationale for the approach IMO evaporates....and if the solution was defined flat as advertised, given the amount of ranting about the 4K limit in numerous WGs, progressing a solution that embodies such a limitation would appear to be less than useful.
Although the list discussion around my comments was an interesting and informative one, I did not consider my concerns addressed. An L3 ARP proxy driving a 1:N MAC-NAT breaks a lot of stuff. IMO that is rather fundamental and more discussion would not change the facts. In that regard I cannot see how my concerns can be addressed by SARP as it stands... I hope this helps... cheers Dave -----Original Message----- From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:00 PM To: int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-nachum-sarp-06.txt Suresh, Sorry for the late feedback, but there are some issues that should be discussed. Some of the following are my views of the document and others are summarized based on feedback from others. To be clear, the following comments are being made as an individual participant. 1. The idea of creating a Layer-2 NAT is rather unappealing. Many folks in the IETF understand the rash of issues that arise with this type of approach. It appears that is what happens with SARP (at least in some instance). 2. It is unclear *who* would want to build (or has built) a layer-2 network at this size and sees the application of proxies/NATs as the solution to scaling issues. Are there operators who have built networks in this way who can clearly explain the problem space? This comes about from the outcome of ARMD. 3. Given the length of time that this draft has been around, are there implementations? 4. How does this approach deal with non-IP traffic? Now with my AD hat on... I believe there are some issues raised by Dave Allan that have been left unanswered, though Dave can correct me if I am wrong. Consensus does not require unanimity, but it does require that all concerns raised be addressed. Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
