On Oct 15, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Michael Chen wrote:
Julian,
We implemented UDP broadcast bootstrap as a simple way to form a
ring in a private network with no enrollment server (self-signed
cert, of course). This is specified in section 5.5.5 and 10.4 of the
draft.
However, there is a small detail here. We assume the broadcast is
always on the Reload port number, i.e. 255.255.255.255:6084 (thus no
enrollment server is needed). I believe this should be recommended
by the draft. Adding this as an extension would seem too trivial.
I somewhat agree however this isn't fully defined as Cullen and I have
pointed out. Also it seems your experiencing the same effect where you
now use internal IP's with Bootstrap because LAN Multicast which as I
mentioned in a previous email is forbidden by the draft. So either it
needs to be fully removed or fully defined and Cullen has removed it
for now. I don't believe the draft should define this because it's
actually non-trivial. When do you join the multicast group? How long
are you a member? Do you send unicast and receive unicast? What do you
do if you receive a stray message of N type? What is the broadcast
interval? Do you join a multicast group on all active network
interfaces? Do you use loopback?
I believe this should be an extension draft because it is non-crucial
to the base protocol. If this were to be part of the base protocol
draft then as I mentioned in the previous emails there would need to
be changes made regarding Clients and Peers as well as the references
to External and Routable IP addressing.
Cullen,
This method (along with LAN multicast) is VERY USEFUL. A private
network can have a single long running node connected to the overlay
on the public Internet. When other peers boot up, they only need to
use broadcast or multicast to join the overlay via that lone "seed"
node in their private network.
Thanks
--Michael
jc wrote:
Cullen,
I've implemented multicast bootstrap and have it well defined. It's
not a necessity and can be removed for base simplicity. As you said
it can be added as an extension draft. In fact I could write the
extension draft for multicast bootstrap.
Julian
On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:07 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I'm not aware of anyone that is using this. It's currently under-
specified in the draft and I'm wondering if we should just remove
it from the base draft. It could easily be added to a different
extension draft. I'll take it out of the next version so people
can see what this would look like but if this turns out not to be
what people want, I'll add it back in if folks that want ti can
send me the text to help finish it.
Thanks, Cullen
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
