Re: [trill] Working group LC on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-03 (10/2 - 10/16)

[R Parameswaran <[e-mail]>]

Hi,


I support the adoption/standardization of this draft, use case seems real.
Informal review per request, comments:

1. Could probably use a text review prior to the next step. One or
   two sentences can be tightened up:

   a. 2.2 item 3 ("The TLVs in an extensible Address Flush message are .. ")

   b. typo in 2.2.8 (type = 8 vs 7 in figure).

2. The draft gives a number of ways to specify an address flush e.g.
   various ways specify vlans, FGLs and MAC addresses (e.g. lists
   blocks, bitlists). Do we know if valid use cases for all these ways of
   specifying a flush? Also, for block specifiers what happens if there
   are overlapping blocks?

3. With a TLV length of 8 bits you cannot really specify more than
   192 FGLs and 42 MAC addresses. Are multiple TLVs of the same type
   allowed? Instead, would it make sense to have a longer TLV length
   field of say 16 bits?

4. It looks like a spoofed address flush can be used to mount a denial
   of service attack. If that is protected by encryption or by perimeter
   security, it might be good to explicitly call this out in Section 4,
   Security Considerations.

thanks,

Ramkumar

[trill] Working group LC on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-03 (10/2 - 10/16)

Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> Mon, 02 October 2017 23:11 UTCShow header
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=trill#>

This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-03.txt.
Please indicate if you think the draft is ready for publication and is
useful for TRILL deployments.

Thanks,
Donald
(WG Secretary for the Chairs: Sue Hares & Jon Hudson)
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

Replies:

   - [trill] 答复: Working group LC on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-03
   (10/2 - 10/16)
   <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/WPuFWUtnsbt_KsrM27dRPygXZBM>
   zhangdacheng <[e-mail]>