IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] 🔔 WGLC for Resource Directory

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 AA17A12015C for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 W-y6BDwGTNpq for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72A63120156 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id e7so705760pln.4 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=rgXuZiLkJD+9S0r/A3dS0ihW5cTEPOUfCQ3AXnlAhnQ=; b=CpaL/j8VLLO0MDEbXVFelnY/XvEbpsj9NbwRyctX8eJxdukubB/VrCfEJZyjmm0nuu BgeBSRNFBuhFe2IePfX2gwP2P3j2ZA9AyP2SjCGRa4VgELjry5gv/8Xj1YR7LVN4e8MI x3/TZHEz43bNrgTrNdNXHr7zVAMW0BUFIQ0jrnHUIuTljhUnB+Ur2hhgG7b+I6lok9OX 7UZv/HgPgB6vsXe0BaQsHeJKwjwznGO2MPQuG6cAgnKd6OSKoRz4u62GmQpQqFg4qu3Q syNGT6YEouOQRJelFGpAX7YdRuIygLAdQBOcDxPH6f/M7XavKTdG7IJ7Ui8IsuVqWln2 ohHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=rgXuZiLkJD+9S0r/A3dS0ihW5cTEPOUfCQ3AXnlAhnQ=; b=rkmz5YoOV4T//Z5EtAN2v9Rn6bUtVPouC++8not4mhdB8tOXDoR1m9o+yzvF8EdQuX rpEjm4qWS0yhSX7MLZbS8Ee/2HYJawVyNoWilDQ/irC3j6lvg3oqdDog/SEyZ9kS+Rch b5ExHojwzWaqzMkgwhW+RI2kIdmhpUhXsLmSLxA9fhm5jUbWSdPQ3ddNUBvtEKcuSICF yPdoCUMrWI1SKVLe5N/r/F+kAm+EYLweRr2/k09ZPnnXw+MPhvsak0gt1aC7eNZ7a0Yb lQJ09bB+gG5lxqBJcoGOSZGclfkVMHakyYdpCkQLRJh2VDbKG/IxuzxBEFw3fcdkwiw8 jzSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWo8hcOkgeAHmswucA6eaJJDBwR4+J2MPEMEcZVMgmtkpREifkr uHjjEvLpZN2BmtXbPc33vzDbdA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxuVegSXcPDbZU/7iN6wy+D5NlBuGHUl9uIuzo+hZ1X8eIIaZMJF7KNz/JSd/+Csu1opPx5IQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4283:: with SMTP id h3mr120023167pld.214.1559142344737; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.12.34] ([12.217.162.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a30sm12332117pje.4.2019.05.29.08.05.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <34EE8F1D-62E6-4C8C-B967-834BAF1FFFAF@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6D4C5FA-780B-4D0B-8B24-42ACA92D89AA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 08:05:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <0d20366a188573397f9e98e4f8adc8e2@bbhmail.nl>
Cc: core@ietf.org, Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/mX_km9YcLUngB7MNz9_TRnF5SUQ>
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 15:05:48 -0000

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