IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] 🔔 WGLC for Resource Directory

Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl> Wed, 29 May 2019 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45AC120154 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbhmail.nl
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 x8J_airZ732g for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0045.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C01F12015E for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D094182CED5B; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:23:18 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bbhmail.nl; h= mime-version:content-type:date:from:to:cc:subject:reply-to :in-reply-to:references:message-id; s=key; bh=ZpD3+iUeiwFuQfLfmX FQo6tcQ8mPao92gFQt+9gDt2s=; b=J92q2c31AsY5/7P65+/Zh5Py0Jzji12K8P U/9feYxEMwrDkBFrQvVJBLkAq7kvC6CJHKF2ycK2uVvqnsYmt0KgvifucFZFor3v /FUglkSo6YtEQBc6St/dFDQvJDaxLnjfo2IiTT4Fq6uDJdm6Zja8Y9Zgq2rEAsrs 5bni34kCY=
X-Session-Marker: 73746F6B636F6E73406262686D61696C2E6E6C
X-Spam-Summary: 10, 1, 0, , d41d8cd98f00b204, stokcons@bbhmail.nl, :::::::, RULES_HIT:41:46:72:150:152:355:379:582:800:960:962:967:973:983:988:989:1152:1189:1208:1221:1260:1313:1314:1345:1359:1431:1436:1437:1516:1517:1518:1535:1542:1575:1588:1589:1592:1594:1711:1730:1776:1792:2198:2199:2527:2528:2553:2557:2559:2562:2892:2914:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3586:3769:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4250:4321:5007:6117:6261:6298:6657:6678:7875:7903:7904:8603:9036:9177:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:11984:12043:12114:12555:12740:12895:12986:13139:13255:13439:14093:14096:14181:14721:21080:21324:21433:21451:21625:21740:21810:30003:30054:30075:30083:30090, 0, RBL:216.40.42.5:@bbhmail.nl:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.8.55.100 66.201.201.201, CacheIP:none, Bayesian:0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Netcheck:none, DomainCache:0, MSF:not bulk, SPF:fn, MSBL:0, DNSBL:neutral, Custom_rules:0:0:0, LFtime:32, LUA_SUMMARY:none
X-HE-Tag: roof46_39e35978be505
X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5442
Received: from mail.bbhmail.nl (imap-ext [216.40.42.5]) (Authenticated sender: webmail@stokcons@bbhmail.nl) by omf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 29 May 2019 15:23:17 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_a6c51f7e244d8e7b745ba3451a284ac5"
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 17:23:17 +0200
From: Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: consultancy@vanderstok.org, core@ietf.org, Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <34EE8F1D-62E6-4C8C-B967-834BAF1FFFAF@fugue.com>
References: <AM5PR0701MB230754CF5CD643B6B7DC1A7697420@AM5PR0701MB2307.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <EBFF17D7-86DF-4C3E-B69E-EF69206A6D17@fugue.com> <02585a832a91742de93f6d311259ae61@bbhmail.nl> <CF34C053-A417-4914-BB28-B4E47E97A625@fugue.com> <498bff27c1804f08365f0e11e6d24050@bbhmail.nl> <32B6BB77-91AA-4F85-B5EA-6AC8C6407F7F@fugue.com> <a97554a90cfd49ce21fb59e43ff0ed63@bbhmail.nl> <33B4FD70-E650-47E4-A603-BD4928E4C47F@fugue.com> <f7fe549e40f879c6f46a0a7d8242241a@bbhmail.nl> <137192BD-7638-4D2E-A6E5-E1618499366F@fugue.com> <0d20366a188573397f9e98e4f8adc8e2@bbhmail.nl> <34EE8F1D-62E6-4C8C-B967-834BAF1FFFAF@fugue.com>
Message-ID: <cfb17f0ee8d4dd0e0984b58658e78cfb@bbhmail.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@bbhmail.nl
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.7
X-Originating-IP: [86.203.245.197]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/HvW45XHxhxa8_YgLqik7ha1cU0c>
Subject: Re: [core] 🔔 WGLC for Resource Directory
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 15:23:22 -0000

>> Nodes want to use the RD before the 6LBR is connected.
>> Another suggestion is then:
>> 
>> In managed networks before connection to the border router, the temporary use of a preconfigured address is recommended.

Ted Lemon schreef op 2019-05-29 17:05:

> On May 29, 2019, at 12:49 AM, Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl> wrote: 
> 
>> The 6LBR only needs to know the addresses of the neigbouring 6LR, obtained with with one broadcast and n unicasts.
> 
> A broadcast is a multicast that goes to every station.   This is what I mean.   If the sometimes-on router finds nodes this way, then it can send them the information they need to talk to the Core RD.   If instead the nodes are all configured with an address for the Core RD, this limits flexibility to no good purpose.  In this situation, if there is no space in the initial announcement for a Core RD server IP address, then defaulting to sending the Core RD messages to the router seems like it would be the right behavior.   Sending it to some other pre-configured address sounds like a maintenance nightmare.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email