Re: [armd] draft-nachum-sarp

Hi Thomas,

>if we are seeing a renewed interested in using proxy ARP for DC stuff, and we start seeing additional submissions in this space, maybe the IETF should do something rather than have a bunch of individual submissions appear

Fully agree. 
Indeed, the ARMD working group has had less energy lately, but we believe that a WG that deals with ARMD solutions rather than ARMD problems will have much more energy.
Our default choice at this point is to proceed draft-nachum-sarp in the independent submission stream, however we would certainly like to see such a working group and take part in it.

Regards,
Tal.

-----Original Message-----
From: armd-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:armd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:19 PM
To: Benson Schliesser
Cc: armd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [armd] draft-nachum-sarp

I just had a quick look at this document. It appears to me to be a combination of "learning" and "proxy ARP". IMO, it needs a bit more detail on some aspects prior to publication, but that is a separate question.

But, looking at draft-dunbar-armd-arp-nd-scaling-bcp-00.txt, it says:

   Recommendation: Revise RFC1027 with VLAN support and scalability for
   the Data Center Environment.

I.e., update the Proxy ARP RFC. That is what draft-nachum-sarp sort of does (well, it defines another usage of Proxy ARP).

Updating (or outlining some best practices for) Proxy ARP does not appear to be in-scope for any WG at the moment. I'm also not sure how much energy there would be for someone to take on such an activity (int-area arguably would be a fine home, were there energy).

On the other hand, if we are seeing a renewed interested in using proxy ARP for DC stuff, and we start seeing additional submissions in this space, maybe the IETF should do something rather than have a bunch of individual submissions appear.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
armd mailing list
armd@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/armd