IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-yizhou-anima-l2-acp-based-ani-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 26 October 2021 18:09 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 9531D3A0DE9 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 o3qd_fJdhEYS for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5A83A1613 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C1C1801E for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:10:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2uVwAo7EuVje for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:10:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF851800D for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:10:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DFD112B for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <b267b71a0ee04522a218620c57d126c6@huawei.com>
References: <163463033712.25024.851885585891035829@ietfa.amsl.com> <7095c13c-1ad2-3b6e-25f2-657faa06fbaa@gmail.com> <b267b71a0ee04522a218620c57d126c6@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:09:21 -0400
Message-ID: <633.1635271761@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/Z5xU5xiuYaV7r-fe97004Oct5J4>
Subject: Re: [Anima] I-D Action: draft-yizhou-anima-l2-acp-based-ani-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: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 18:09:30 -0000

Liyizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com> wrote:
    > A campus network may contain the different types of equipment, L2
    > switches,

unmanaged L2 switches?
Or managed L2 switches with L3 addresses for their control plane?

    > L3 routers, hybrid L2/L3 switches. To make things easy, it is
    > quite common that all the nodes are enrolled as layer 2 to form a layer
    > 2 topology.

Yes. It's a regular disaster when loops form and the STP turns off the wrong
port, and then the network breaks.

    > Then a collection of the physical connection/topology would
    > be required to check to see if the cabling is correctly made.

SNMP/YANG collection of LLDP adjacency data would seem to be the correct process here.

    > That is
    > to say, assuming using link-local unicast and multicast address to
    > reach each L2 port brings extra requirements to L2 devices as L2 ports
    > may never use those IP addresses for their real data plane forwarding.

That seems like the wrong way to do things.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email