IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-anima-l2acp-scenarios-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 28 February 2019 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88FE130ED1 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:01:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpwQjNfghmF5 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9853D12E04D for <anima@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:01:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD42380BE; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:01:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 36588C71; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:01:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B5E989; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:01:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <bd6c89e9-fcee-3629-b820-e7df5424bdac@gmail.com>
References: <155129708703.13895.17903122384493347411@ietfa.amsl.com> <caa4f5db-73b2-b159-0e31-0f29ab0c3ae7@gmail.com> <18583.1551316965@localhost> <bd6c89e9-fcee-3629-b820-e7df5424bdac@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+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: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:01:39 -0500
Message-ID: <30259.1551319299@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/BlhrtL2bMrDw3M6Jz0wy8fOTzT0>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-anima-l2acp-scenarios-00.txt
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 02:01:44 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > Here is a new draft for ANIMA to consider. We believe it is useful
    >> > to explore the idea of an autonomic control plane constructed at
    >> > the link layer. Comments please!
    >>
    >> Does this mean it transports L2 packets (a la spanning-tree or TRILL), or
    >> does this mean it uses L2 technologies like MACSEC to create a tunnel
    >> for L3 packets?

    > Well, I don't think the draft in its present form should attempt to
    > answer that question. In my mind I was thinking of a conventional
    > LAN set up, i.e. spanning tree, but that doesn't have to be the
    > only way. In practice that usually needs MLDv2 snooping as well.

okay, so you were thinking about the first part.
Yes, you need MLDv2 snooping.

    >> i.e. does L3 multicast appear to just work because it more layer-2 tricks?

    > L3 multicast works automatically if L2 multicast works, surely (remembering
    > that there is no router). How L2 multicast works is another question, of
    > course. I don't mean to say it's unimportant, just that it's not in scope
    > for this particular draft.

In other words, more IPv4-inspired L2-tricks to maintain the illusion there
is a big-blue cable with AUI taps on it.  And continued inability to see L2
switches, or creatively route around L2 failures :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email