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

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 23 February 2017 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18AE1299EB for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:08:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PCv5JPjjcpmZ for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 568D41299E1 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD305E1E3; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:29:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA096381A; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:08:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: anima-bootstrap <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:08:02 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] Brian: GRASP parameter for registrar discovery by proxy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:08:07 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <> 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.

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 <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-