Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Limited Domains:

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

> My main view is, if the domain is truly limited, firewalled or even air
gapped, then what is the motivation to seek approval in a standards body?

Spot on !

If someone (vendor or operator) is to seek to deploy some functionality
limited to his own network new ethertype should be allocated and then he is
free to do whatever needed.

Otherwise I do not subscribe to this limited domain vs Internet limitation
of any IETF spec. I have never seen for the Internet ethertype any way to
scope it not to be send over the limited domain boundary.

Best,
R.


On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 12:12 AM Manfredi (US), Albert E <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
>
> > I think this this thread nicely demonstrates that we need to first
> define what a "limited domain" is.
> >
> > To some it seems to be 1980s definition of an IGP network boundary. More
> modern folks would consider as "limited domain" a set of IGP ASNs areas
> interconnected by p2p BGP still under the same administration.
> >
> > For me "limited domain" is an arbitrary collection of sites anywhere in
> the world using Internet for inter-connectivity.
>
> Good point! Whereas to me, "limited domain" means, only inside this
> platform.
>
> > So any protocol which claims to be defined for "limited domain" and
> which claims that it is backwards compatible with nodes not supporting it
> is equal to allow it to traverse Internet.
>
> "Backwards compatible" may mean different things to different people, and
> it seem dubious in this case (because flow label is to be a random value,
> per IPv6). My main view is, if the domain is truly limited, firewalled or
> even air gapped, then what is the motivation to seek approval in a
> standards body?
>
> Bert
>
>