Re: [Anima] Use of M_FLOOD for discovery of Proxy

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

On 13/06/2017 03:38, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> {note subject line change}
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> 3.1.1.  Proxy Discovery Protocol Details
>     >>
>     >> The proxy uses the GRASP M_FLOOD mechanism to announce itself.  This
>     >> announcement is done with the same message as the ACP announcement
>     >> detailed in [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
> 
>     bc> Can we make it:
> 
>     bc> This announcement SHOULD be done with the same message...
>     bc> That's only an optimisation, really.
> 
> Agreed.  I think we all agree that the announcement of the proxy
> (and the search for ACP peers) is something that M_FLOOD is good for.
> 
>     bc> (After the discussion back in Berlin, we added a feature to
>     bc> M_FLOOD to allow arbitrary locators to be attached to a given
>     bc> flood message. I thought that was what the BRSKI team wanted
>     bc> at that time. Seems not.)
> 
> yes, we asked for two locators to be attached to a flood message so that we
> could announce ACP and Proxy in the same message.  Given the experience
> with rate limiting that you experienced, this seems doubly prudent since
> this M_FLOOD will occur outside any ACP, and will have to traverse any
> number of layer-2 devices.
> 
> (This will be worse at the beginning of ANIMA deployment, as the layer-2
> devices will not be ACP aware, but will get better as more devices get with
> the program...)
> 
> So, let's leave this part, which is
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-06#section-3.1.1
> 
> As there is no dispute about it, I think.
> If it should be named AN_PROXY, that's fine.

I think it does need some work on the way it's described, but I agree,
we are fine in principle on this point.

    Brian