IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13.txt - SONN]

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 09 June 2017 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 76FBC126BF7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
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] 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 rUJPxk4Do0B7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA7C9120724 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59LFnLp026760; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 23:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.124] (p5DC7F3A7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.243.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wkw7T1mR2z3ZfM; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 23:15:49 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <588e1953-4db1-086b-d441-2371e352ad73@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 23:15:48 +0200
Cc: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 518735748.00666-4b7b7d3eee054bd7d134152a13408107
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B4F99EAF-46CB-4BFD-AC1D-6F5B6BE83879@tzi.org>
References: <149669625424.3230.10151704455578829166@ietfa.amsl.com> <f829bda3-d4f5-014d-8ffd-e63537171ba6@gmail.com> <20170606232417.GJ12427@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <41e0a6fc-9410-4d84-cae6-74dbd3fdfa74@gmail.com> <20170607205533.GD20021@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <7dd77b25-2319-3999-bf4a-2274eb0728a1@gmail.com> <3434.1496937571@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <cb901c29-cdf9-fdff-8e9b-1e2cc5079359@gmail.com> <21716.1497019696@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <588e1953-4db1-086b-d441-2371e352ad73@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Uj7rteLDZARrtQZyCPNi7BgvFF0>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ACP [was I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13.txt - SONN]
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 21:16:19 -0000

On Jun 9, 2017, at 22:43, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But if not, *somebody* is going to replicate the packets. If the VRF
> doesn't do it, GRASP itself will have to do it. That doesn't seem optimal
> to me.

I wonder why you are saying this.

Generally, where information needs to be disseminated to a group, there is an end-to-end argument giving the application a big role in that.  Supporting this directly in the network can only really be motivated by performance considerations(*); do you think this function here is performance-critical?

Grüße, Carsten

(*) or where the topology defines the group, but I don’t think this is the case here.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email