Re: [Anima-bootstrap] Brian: GRASP parameter for registrar discovery by proxy

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Forgot something...

On 24/02/2017 05:08, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > That seems to go back to using discover/response. Wrong answer, IMHO;
>     > flooding is simpler: fewer messages and richer semantics. I'm going to
>     > assume that below.
> 
> What if the Registrar needs to be aware of the Join Proxy (prior to it making
> use of it), and may need to do some (local) configuration or load balancing
> in the decision to provide service to that proxy.

That seems a bit disjoint from "proxy needs to find registrar". And it definitely
sounds like a two-way conversation, which would more naturally be modelled as
a negotiation. Can you change that from a "what if?" to a more specific
requirement that we can model?

    Brian

> 
> This seems to be a clear case where discovery ought to be used.
> 
>     > (Also, using link-local examples is an oversight, surely: this should
>     > be an ACP address, e.g. fdab:dead:beef::1234, I think.)
> 
> Yes, exactly. It should be an ACP address.
> 
>     > The could be sent all in one Flood message, or in separate ones,
>     > possible from different sources if there were actually two registrars,
> 
> It seems like Flood responses and Responses ought to be interchangeable.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>