[trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
* 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.  
* 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?
* Section 3.2: How is an ND message where the target IP is not known
handled? This case seems to be left out.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* The draft contains no discussion of SEND (RFC3971) in the Security
considerations section when talking about forged ND messages.