Re: [Anima] ANIMA when there is a system-wide issue

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Yes, that's a different problem, but I agree it is related.
    >>
    >> For the L2 SDN that does not use STP because it does not want blocked
    >> ports, but rather wants to use all the bandwidth, the problem is keep
    >> the ACP DULL multicast from causing loops.

    > Uhmm.. not clar. Forget ACP DULL... You have an ethernet without STP
    > but with rdundant paths. How do you avoid loops ? Do you use one of the
    > IEEE SPF alternatives to STP ?

Yes, maybe one of the alternatives, maybe because some SDN controller deals
with updating the right forwarding tables.

    > Last time i checked OpenBMC git was very confusing, seemed like mostly
    > facebook internal adoption, but couldn't figure out any option i could
    > easily buy individually as an experimentation platform.

Well, there is significant progress.  But you are right: it is hard to find
actual hardware you can run it on without working for the hardware company.
But, that's because of TPM mechansim.
I also notice how hard it is to run alternate firmware on Cisco/Junipier/Huawei/etc.

    >> One might still want the ACP running even if the context of a BMC user
    >> who shoots eirself in the foot.  The Linux kernel gives one the
    >> "macvlan" which is effectively a kind of bridge (actually mutually
    >> exclusive with being in the a bridge).  The macvlan gets a kernel
    >> allocated randomized mac address, and can be moved into a network
    >> namespace and effectively hidden, however, there does not seem to be a
    >> way to keep the physical interface from being marked down.

    > Right. Ideally you would have SrIOV to create a PCI-bus level disjoint
    > ethernet interface for the ACP. Alas, today, like MacSEC this is an
    > option only on high-end Ethernet PCI controllers. Or else you have to
    > much around in he linux kernel to create protectiona against unintended
    > shutdowns.

Yes, so there are issues.

    tte> Need to read through EAP over Ethernet to check what we could
    tte> share. I forgot all about it.  But ultimatly, its going to be a
    tte> small "selector-header" on top of the new ethertype that we need to
    tte> define.
    >>
    >> You want chapter 11 of 802.1X-2020.  Table 11-3 lists the 9 EAPOL
    >> types used.  No equivalent to IANA Consideratons exist, so I think
    >> that it would require a revision by the IEEE to allocate a code.  That
    >> would really be enough.

    > Right. I didn't mean to use EAPOL. I meant to document all the
    > arguments why NOT to use it, but then also reuse all the reuseable
    > ideas that we need.

ah.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide