Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] draft-richardson-anima-ipv6-lldp

I've had a brief look at this draft.   My personal belief is that this is a
gross miss-use of the LLDP protocol.  LLDP is NOT a general L2 transport
protocol.   It is intended to exchange a 'relatively' static local database
with neighbors.   When an LLDP agent receives a frame, it is supposed to
compare what it received with what it received the last time and if
anything is different, it will throw away all of the previous information,
replace the database with the most recently received information and
'wake-up' the higher layers to process the changes.  The expectation (and
design center for the protocol) is that things do NOT change frequently.
Assuming the IPv6 packets are intending to implement their own protocol and
will be changing frequently, encapsulating an IPv6 packet inside an LLDP
TLV would signal a change on each transmission and possibly cause an SNMP
TRAP on each packet received by a traditional implementation.   If I
understand the use case correctly, the draft is seriously miss-using the
protocol and I believe others within 802.1 would agree with me.

Paul

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:47 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> There was a discussion of draft-richardson-anima-ipv6-lldp on the ANIMA WG
> virtual interim meeting earlier today.  It would be great if someone
> familiar with LLDP could take a look at the Internet-Draft and let the
> group know if there is a better way to proceed.
>
> Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
> ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>