Re: [Anima-bootstrap] peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <> Tue, 18 October 2016 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E573D12945F for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 01:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08Z4PeFD_4fC for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 01:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C771293DA for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 01:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4446; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476777827; x=1477987427; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=bTUwOSTGdxc6Crw5rfzHSYNA0VKlpSFq/sxmrrR51tY=; b=e+freVH8kLotJjf9zNXRdzMQL1Uk3LfF9X+UzjRxGuf9ONnO0GUjXm2H /FAqJN11ZqCUFYkFC1HoU0IU0/jK3fm5NQZk2VZ1VeDG521MLNfXxTPCs +ybL3bxBpqyL5tq81gYu/UxoD6jMhzJLRgGBxxUnChXz5jg9ctO1zELxD g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,361,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="336893965"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Oct 2016 08:03:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9I83kNM019187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:46 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 03:03:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 03:03:46 -0500
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <>
Thread-Topic: peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]
Thread-Index: AQHSKMzDH2EjrLtAb0y19VpfIxZoY6Ct13tA
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:46 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:52 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter []
> Sent: 18 October 2016 01:18
> To: Max Pritikin (pritikin) <>; Michael Behringer
> (mbehring) <>
> Cc:
> Subject: peer and domain [was BRSKI State Machine]
> On 18/10/2016 12:05, Max Pritikin (pritikin) wrote:
> ...
> >> - I think we need to bring out more strongly that the state machine needs
> to track peer and domain. Because, if there is a failure, the pledge should,
> depending on the failure of course, not try the same domain again, and
> probably not the same peer either. This isn't coming out today.
> >> In fact, this is why I liked the "adjacency table" so much that I presented in
> Berlin (and before): Because there you see much clearer that, if enrolment
> fails with peer x, you may just move to the next one. As mentioned it's all
> there, but to a new reader this won't come out clearly, I'm afraid.
> >
> > Yeah, I can see your point that this is buried in the text of 3.1.1 where it is
> implied that there is a list of "services returned during each query” and in
> failure the list processing "picks up where it left off” but thats pretty subtle.
> What exactly is the "peer" in the above text? I tend to assume it's the proxy.
> In that case it seems to me that the discovery process (whether it's mDNS or
> GRASP) will discover all available proxies regardless of domain. And then try
> them in some order of preference TBD.

"peer" is an entry in the adjacency table. Yes, there may be several on an interface, of several different domains. The adjacency table discussion tries to capture that. 
> Also, all of this needs to work in the absence of an ACP and therefore of the
> ACP's adjacency table. That applies to GRASP too, because in order to
> perform its various link-local actions, it needs to know which interfaces it has
> and which link-local addresses it has. And it learns of its link-local neighbors as
> a result of discovery. So while I fully appreciate the value of the adjacency
> table, we need to be functional without it.

Now we're getting into a muddle with ANIMA vs non-ANIMA modes. (And you're right - this is important to sort out). Let's see whether we can sort that. 

Up front: This is the ANIMA WG, and we're primarily defining the behaviour of an ANIMA node. This is, IMO:

- There is an adjacency table, that observes what nodes are seen on each ANIMA-capable interface. 
- This table is fed by discovery (primarily). 
- Depending on the state of the node, and the state of an adjacent node, different things will happen. 
  (see my presentation on the reference model, last IETF - all described there)

For ANIMA, we need to settle on MUST discovery methods. 
In ANIMA, we will ALWAYS build an ACP to other nodes of the same domain. 

The adjacency table links BRSKI and ACP automatically: Once I discover a node which is in the same domain, I attempt to set up an ACP connection with that node. 

Outside ANIMA, GRASP can be used in many other ways; BRSKI can be used to derive LDevIDs and nothing else. 

Do we agree? 

> Rgds
>     Brian