Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-24 Thread Max Pritikin (pritikin)
re: "this case must work” There sure is a lot of complexity in this thread to ensure that link local addresses can be used outside of the local scope. Some simpler suggestions, 1) a stateful proxy. I know, I know. But how many devices are actually going to need to perform BRSKI at the same

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-17 Thread Michael Richardson
Eliot Lear wrote: > On the other hand, maybe it's fundamental, but is relying on LL in this > architecture to go beyond LL boundaries the right thing to do? We've already established a way around the concern that made me think that we needed multiple LL for the proxy,

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-17 Thread Eliot Lear (elear)
Sure. Use normal unicast addresses (ULA or other) if available. Eliot > On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > Can you propose a stateless proxy model that would not pass the link-local > addresses on to the registrar and that uses Michaels beloved IPinIP

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-17 Thread Eliot Lear
On the other hand, maybe it's fundamental, but is relying on LL in this architecture to go beyond LL boundaries the right thing to do? On 7/17/17 8:34 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > Toerless Eckert wrote: > > I thought i had asked that question already but not sure, and not

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-16 Thread Toerless Eckert
Sorry, cathing up late with the thread. Thanks, Eliot. Thats good information. The MAC address based limited link-local address space is a problem for devices running a proxy. Do you have an idea about some class of devices that has the issue that you describe and that could be proxies ? I know

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-14 Thread Michael Richardson
Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: > OK, I'm >> getting there. More in line: >> >> >> 1) Registrar accepts any Lx1 as local. There is no precedent in v6 >> >> APIs to open such a socket, but this

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-14 Thread Eliot Lear
Hi Brian, On 7/14/17 12:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > That may be true, but for BRSKI as such, the only hard requirement is > an address that is unique on a given link, which is a requirement anyway. > IPIP is more of an issue for the node providing the proxy, which is > hopefully a bit

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-13 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 14/07/2017 08:58, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Toerless, > > > On 7/6/17 9:09 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:34:05PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> It used to be, but the recommendation today is a pseudo-random >>> value (RFC7217). In any case it's a software choice.

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-13 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 13/07/2017 21:40, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > OK, I'm getting there. More in line: > > >> 1) Registrar accepts any Lx1 as local. There is no precedent in v6 > >> APIs to open such a socket, but this actually supported

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-13 Thread Michael Richardson
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > OK, I'm getting there. More in line: >> 1) Registrar accepts any Lx1 as local. There is no precedent in v6 >> APIs to open such a socket, but this actually supported on many >> platforms. It's used for nasty stuff like

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-12 Thread Michael Richardson
Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Is the >> following correct? >> >> > Topology (ASCII art): >> >> Topology is essentially correct. As you point out, RFC7217 is the >> recommendation

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-11 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 12/07/2017 12:44, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Is the following correct? > > > Topology (ASCII art): > > Topology is essentially correct. > As you point out, RFC7217 is the recommendation going forward, so having > a a big

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter
And for those who aren't on v6ops, the answer is clear: Although for classical host o/s I'm correct, and the norm is to have a different link-local address on each interface, a) this is not required by the IPv6 standards, and b) on L2/L3 switches from major manfacturers, it is common that many

Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

2017-07-05 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 06/07/2017 15:37, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 02:19:23PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Hi BRSKI authors, > > Can i still answer ? > > Inline. I only have an ACP author, WG chair and general bloviator hat > though... > >> Is the following correct? >> >> Topology