Agree. I just query with IEEE DCB. ECP and VDP can be sent to specific node, not only the adjacent bridge. It can be sent to bridge, routers, even Firewalls... The text in VDP standard draft is as following:
" The destination address of the Ethernet frame that contains a ECPDU is specified by the ULP. The address used is either an individual MAC address or one of the reserved addresses specified in Table 8-1 " Whereas, an example of ULP is VDP. Best Regards Gu Yingjie -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Anoop Ghanwani 发送时间: 2012年7月27日 乐乐8:03 收件人: [email protected] 抄送: [email protected]; Linda Dunbar 主题: Re: [nvo3] TES-NVE attach/detach protocol security (mobility-issues draft) On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I didn't intend to go there (at least not in this thread), as > DHCP traffic is L2 LAN/VLAN scoped, whereas VDP (and ECP) are scoped to > a single L2 link, and hence have rather different requirements/behavior > in terms of where they hit the control plane. That scope is the case as defined today, but that can be changed. We can always define the capability for ECP/VDP to be sent to a specific unicast address. There is a precedent for that with LLDP & LACP. However, we then have to address the problem for how to discover that unicast address. > The only thing I'm trying to do is reuse the words "relay" and "proxy" as > they are used with DHCP to differentiate two classes of possible VDP > functionality in a bridge between an End Device and an NVE. A "relay" just > forwards the traffic associated with the protocol whereas a "proxy" is a > full participant in the protocol. This type of operation is less clear to me. Anoop _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
