[bess] Comments on the ND refresh message in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-08

<wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn> Mon, 26 August 2019 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC90A1200CE for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 2D4nEcnpozZo for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 8474512006E for <bess@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 09991CC2466BCB53ED1C; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:43:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x7Q2hM4J075959; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:43:22 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:43:21 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:43:21 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d634749111fd839
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201908261043219765101@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <wang.yubao2@zte.com.cn>
To: <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
Cc: <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x7Q2hM4J075959
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/SUa9JkmpkrPhE5f0CW9LUSEcTB8>
Subject: [bess] =?utf-8?q?Comments_on_the_ND_refresh_message_in_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-08?=
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 02:43:39 -0000

Hi Jorge,


The ND refresh message is assumed to be a NS message with its Sender's IP = Link Local Address in section 4.4 of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-08.



<snip>



      An ARP refresh issued by the PE will be an ARP-Request message           


      with the Sender's IP = 0 sent from the PE's MAC SA. If the PE has

      an IP address in the subnet, for instance on an IRB interface,

      then it MAY use it as a source for the ARP request (instead of           

      Sender's IP = 0). An ND refresh will be a NS message issued from

      the PE's MAC SA and a Link Local Address associated to the PE's

      MAC.


</snip>







But I think there may be no Link Local Address when the bridge domain is not assigned with an IRB interface.


Will the Link Local Address of ND refresh message be used in the reply message?


Otherwise it is just an IPv6 address with the Link Local Address format, but it won't function as a real Link Local Address? 


Why not we use the 0:0:0:0:0:0 ?  






Best Regards,


Bob