Re: [Anima-signaling] GRASP and renumbering: suggestions

Hi Brian.
Comments below.
Best.
Jéferson

Em qui, 26 de mai de 2016 às 20:46, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hi design team. I expect you saw the recent messages about renumbering,
> and you may have seen the big discussion in 6man about stable addresses.
>
> I have two suggestions for GRASP.
>
> 1) In the description of discovery, we say this:
>
>  After a GRASP device successfully discovers a Discovery
>  Responder supporting a specific objective, it MUST cache this
>  information.  This cache record MAY be used for future
>  negotiation or synchronization, and SHOULD be passed on when
>  appropriate as a Divert option to another Discovery Initiator.
>  The cache lifetime is an implementation choice that MAY be
>  modified by network Intent.
>
> I suggest adding something more here:
>
>  In some environments, unexpected address renumbering might occur.
>  In such cases, the cache lifetime SHOULD be short compared to
>  the expected address lifetime and a mechanism to flush the
>  discovery cache SHOULD be implemented.
>

I'm not an english native speaker, but I would expect MUSTs instead of
SHOULDs. Or maybe this is related to the "some environments" restriction...

> 2) And in the API, I suggest that the 'discover' function
> needs an optional 'flush' parameter, to specify that previously
> discovered locators must be flushed first.
>
> I am reluctant to add a TTL to discovery responses. It's a complication,
> and experience with DNS is that resolvers often ignore the TTL.
>

I believe most discovery protocols work use TTL, thus I would favor using
also. However, I'm not sure how this would impact the signaling protocol
and, consequently, the current implementations.

> Comments?
>
>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima-signaling mailing list
> Anima-signaling@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-signaling
>