Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 13 July 2016 03:33 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6272412D097; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mtq1gxxvSPdK; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D456612B008; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79886d000002334-77-5785ab9d08fc
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3D.78.09012.D9BA5875; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:46:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:33:33 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHR1z/w7QmO385CtkWAPrT3I8nf1w==
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:33:32 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643D622A0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <20160706043613.22358.34214.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEF2v6yTTTYnopGzyQ_OxfgiZTPXZQ=Ro1mFXkk0mC73eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHT3fu6tZwg6XXZS0Obte0uHX3DpvF jD8TmS2mflzHZPHzxGVmi/eTt7M5sHnsnHWX3WPJkp9MHrNfX2cNYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vg yji74S97wSGZip1LDzE3MO4U72Lk5JAQMJHY/qWVDcIWk7hwbz2QzcUhJHCUUeL3gmZ2CGc5 o8TDDauYQKrYgDo27PwMZosIqEm8Xr6ABaSIWeAto8TOzbcZQRLCAjkSm9oPs0EU5Uocm7ga ytaTWNLUzg5iswioSjTefwIU5+DgFfCVeHtICGJZB6NEz93XYHMYgU76fmoN2DJmAXGJW0/m M0GcKiCxZM95ZghbVOLl43+sELaSxMff89kh6nUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/garJ5XQFDi5MwnLBMY RWchGTsLScssJC2zkLQsYGRZxchRWlyQk5tuZLCJERhBxyTYdHcw3p/ueYhRgINRiYdXwaA1 XIg1say4MvcQowQHs5II74wlQCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8Yo8Uw4UE0hNLUrNT UwtSi2CyTBycUg2M3dcOBnAevh9UXHGrq4t7R7o5x6Sq/l6+c88CtZ5OqIiInWex1bJNJ+fY kfszd6+6IxnqNGny/MO820wmLzP0zV78rU5moXDMhgjes48/SZp1MYrOLcmMD/GosOUK9o2N FcjaEP+1e2X24dt8ORmr7SKdOTznXfj7NG2d/at1vEvs4tfnWLMqsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAbRH/ WZwCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/b2C93-6Cn_2POQP34ZEBIHtW73k>
Cc: "draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization@ietf.org>, "trill-chairs@ietf.org" <trill-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <skh@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:33:36 -0000
Hi Donald, Your proposed changes look good to me. I will clear once the new version gets posted with the changes, Thanks Suresh On 07/07/2016 10:04 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > Thanks for your insightful comments. See below. > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Suresh Krishnan > <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote: >> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: Discuss >> >> ... >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> * After the ingress RBridge learns the mapping between an IPv6 address >> and a MAC address how is the liveness being tested/maintained? i.e. If a >> "learnt" target IP goes off link and the Rbridge keeps responding to NS >> messages wouldn't it make troubleshooting a nightmare? > > There needs to be appropriate liveness determination. There are a lot > of ways this could be done but rather than going into this here, I > think that a section should be added to the document on this topic. > (Exactly what would happen if and IPv6 end station crashed or got > disconnected would depend on many factors. In some cases the edge > RBridge would know right away if it was a point-to-point link that > went down. But optimized ARP/NS responses should stop not long after > the end station becomes non-responsive to ARP/NS messages it receives > directly.) > >> * Section 3.2 case a): There is no guidance as to why or when an Rbridge >> would pick cases a1..a5. e.g. When a SEND NS is received only option a2 >> can work and all others will fail. > > Yes, the restrictions on SEND should be noted. Otherwise, the choice > is a matter of local policy. > >> * Section 3.2 case a.1): What should be the source IPv6 address of the NA >> generated by the ingress RBridge? Will this be an address of the target >> of the NS or one of the ingress Rbridge that responds? > > There is no requirement in the TRILL protocol that an RBridge have > either an IPv4 or IPv6 address (although as a practical matter, they > probably almost always do). So the source IPv6 address should be that > of the target. > >> * Section 3.2: How is an ND message where the target IP is not known >> handled? This case seems to be left out. > > If the target IP is "unknown", then generally you would flood based on > the destination MAC within the VLAN/Label of the traffic but if you > were in an environment with complete directory information and you > know that IP did not exist, I think you could just discard the message. > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> * The draft contains no discussion of SEND (RFC3971) in the Security >> considerations section when talking about forged ND messages. > > Yes, I think that should be mentioned. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com >
- Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Donald Eastlake
- [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-t… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan