IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] [Anima] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-09

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 April 2022 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B593A0745; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 19:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 rjbn2vHqKUyI; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 19:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF8683A0028; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 19:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF91A38B55; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:43:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gzwX7G6fQGek; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:43:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B86738AFD; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:43:32 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1649299412; bh=sx+Ba9O5x9GULKwKm2sGTQ961TIT6b6eR0QwzHJFKXs=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=r+/6RE4U2liq3lKKDllw5lcwCRUy5T2X6H1soq4RvOB+zCFV0Ko1o7DF4OZrBTkjy BEOB20vHwF3ptul2eePRSrFLyIRR8WrVWtqREXH6uTOpmKLClJIGPdOZSGp2gsMoQV QBC/7eqmDj+SJCQpr7X7m8XoW+7VNGrVD+21dlP7LDW61aRR+RV/WyejBtBtKrZQe7 EmPVhCdfkcbqamVqWpsDlq/dKNcoRwJBNeKuucFlNKJoYLq7pOaC7CKHHaprcu2m87 ATAvmhYbcuYR7VAzasIhzLi//uZwzF2qMbxGkS911DEL44QJyFML2GxbhDPcZ0YoBt c0n/mtaYcnWig==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB869166; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:32:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FB=3FSsO8cmdlbiBTY2jDtm53w6RsZGVy=3F=3D?= <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Peter van der Stok <stokcons@bbhmail.nl>, ops-dir@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <bd459d63-7265-36be-ba21-25b9c08a594a@gmail.com>
References: <164883335420.24992.11762904207626092789@ietfa.amsl.com> <dd02e4368fbd5f3e4c202db9c256f589@bbhmail.nl> <20220405083633.bb36qofw36hv23nw@anna> <bd459d63-7265-36be-ba21-25b9c08a594a@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:32:18 -0400
Message-ID: <28600.1649298738@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/kGaaXM3DAyDn5UNblQayb618Ecw>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Anima] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-09
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 02:32:35 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > (I can see some issues with that as applied in a pure mesh
    > network, where we'd need a mechanism to prevent every pledge
    > also becoming a join proxy.)

There is work in ROLL that deals with some of this concern.
Specifically that in constrained LLNs, devices run out of neighbor cache
entries, and need to ration how many are used for joining (enrolling, onboarding).

In an Enterprise or ISP ACP, when the L2 fabric is ACP aware, there actually
aren't any broadcast domains left.  Every link is pretty much a p2p ethernet,
so actually there aren't too many join proxies.

It's only when we play stupid L2 games, joining many links into a "LAN" that
the problem of too many join proxies becomes a concern :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email