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

I thought i had asked that question already but not sure, and not seen an answer:
- I have never seen that a device has more than one link-local addr on an interface.
  Is this permitted by IPv6 arck ? Can you configure this in eg: Linux. I thought i
  tried on linux/cisco-ios in the past and i do not quite remember, but i think it
  failed (only one address).

- Do we have another address assignment scheme other than a) MAC address based,
  or b) RFC7217   or c) non-randomn manual config. Could we get some scope
  relative address range for this purpose ?

More inline:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 08:44:31PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> There is a small problems with this.  With a UDP transport, we simply
> have to arrange for the registrar to accept traffic to any LxX IP address.
> That's not stock POSIX, but it's not that hard.  LxX state can be handled
> by the application.  With TCP the kernel has be rather flexible, being
> able to keep duplicate Lp<->Lx1 connections seperate in the kernel, and
> at the same time, permitting any LxX on the Registrar's side.

How would this work, can you elaborate a bit ? 

Btw: Off the top of my head i think its a lot easier to forget kernel stuff and
use a registrar that maps received eg: UDP (or IPinIP) packets with encapsulated 
UDP/CoAP payloads than trying to persuade to build a virtual interface for each
association. When the payload becomes TCP/TLS/BRSKI, i do see more value in
trying to have the registrar app NOT have to deal with TCP.

> In my implementation, I dynamically set up an IPIP interface for each Lx
> on each proxy that appears.  The kernel assigns a new ifindex to each of
> these interfaces, and the normal LL-requires-ifindex rules apply to
> distinguish things.  This requires a retransmission since the first time
> there is a packet from a new Ax1/LAN1, the packet does not match any current
> IPIP tunnel, and is dropped by the kernel.  A process watches for these
> and configures them LRU.
> 
> 
> As for Toerless' notion that we should invent a new UDP-based encapsulation
> rather than use the well defined IPIP encapsulation, I have really no comment.

That easy to make you speech-less ? How bout writing a registrar on anything
else than Linux. Do you feel confident you can get what you need into any OS
kernel ?

Cheers
   Toerless

> I'm pretty sure that many will want to leverage existing v6-extension header
> chasing hardware for the purpose of auditing, which is why I prefer not
> to invent new on-the-wire formats just to so that some software engineer can
> avoid having to learn a new API call.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de