Re: [Anima] Is this how BRSKI/IPIP works?

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

On 13/07/2017 21:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > OK, I'm getting there. More in line:
> 
>     >> 1) Registrar accepts any Lx1 as local.  There is no precedent in v6
>     >> APIs to open such a socket, but this actually supported on many
>     >> platforms.  It's used for nasty stuff like transparent application
>     >> layer proxies, forced HTTP proxying, and the like.
> 
>     > I think there's a more subtle way to look at it. When the registrar
>     > receives a protocol 41 packet from a new ACP address, it conceptually
>     > synthesises a new virtual interface and assigns Lx1 as its link local
>     > address. On that interface, things would look normal. Thus RFC2473:
> 
> I can buy this.
> It argues that the Proxy should send a gratuitous packet to the Registrar to
> prime that virtual interface.  An ICMP echo request perhaps.

Or a GRASP M_NOOP, designed for such purposes!
 
> How can we document this well?

I think it has to be spelled out almost at the pseudocode level. We had to
spell out the encap/decap behaviour for 6to4 in some detail, and that was
just about the only bit of 6to4 that never created trouble ;-). There
are various encap/decap specs of that kind, and the NAT64 stuff
also goes into horrible detail...

   Brian

> 
>     >> 3) We have the Registrar tell the proxy an Lx value to use.  I chose
>     >> to put this option into the protocol, because we can always set Lx=
>     >> Lanycast in the future, and perhaps we can set it to :: if we want
>     >> case (1).
> 
>     > I like this least of all. What happens if there are multiple
>     > registrars?  And when a proxy node comes up as a pledge, it must give
>     > itself a LL address on each interface before it even tries to perform
>     > its own BRSKI, and before it looks for its own proxy and joins the
> 
> Yeah, you are right, this doesn't work if there are multiple registrars.
>