IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 12 July 2017 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 E4F2C12EB69 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 Yrk0MREQ3qOm for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05E8B129A96 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB80A1F906; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:47:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 17209E43; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
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: <a933b9fc-bc89-f86d-c87a-ac6d5c453724@gmail.com>
References: <a933b9fc-bc89-f86d-c87a-ac6d5c453724@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> message dated "Tue, 04 Jul 2017 17:32:06 +1200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:47:35 -0400
Message-ID: <15780.1499820455@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/yCZMUwJ3-bHFxh-H-g2xmGcMKWE>
Subject: Re: [Anima] IPIP in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-07
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:47:39 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > But the third locator sent by the Registrar indicates a meaningless
    > link-local address, because it could come from many hops away. At first
    > I thought this was a confusion with the previous (proxy-to-pledge)
    > case, where all addresses must be link-local. But no: this text is just
    > confused, I think:

This LL address is the Lr from my email of three minutes ago:

mcr> Instead, I have two suggestions, not entirely mutually exclusive:
mcr>  1) the Registrar says, "I accept IPIP on Address Ar, use Lr for
mcr>  connections"
mcr>  2) we make Lr = well known Link-Local anycast address

I included Lr in the protocol, even if we might decide that we want to make
it well-known.



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email