Re: [trill] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Wed, 03 August 2016 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295AB12D5E9; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lZGWYqeJ7Gn6; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4577112D195; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4683; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470241537; x=1471451137; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=1gxrkdvksLxnX00rvds6+XOoncGS4gHV8iFOMvi50cg=; b=ESPU42XD/eCt+wW1pBQsPiCZxksvG15sC8Fdt1kU+/uL4isB6YeXOqnY xbeDlGg/AeoNs6PflkKavqDsuctxFPNFqzsErSS8GHsE0ScIdrKsRruxQ iifeN4p8diY6XWJ7u2Z59gi4EhQ42+7dJdQ+Z0n1RV6cxKxHXzULODHhU 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,466,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="306412591"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Aug 2016 16:25:36 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u73GPa8I005656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:25:36 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:25:35 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:25:35 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHR1/2VZpfMe8ySgUmF8zpB3UnG7KAwgwoAgAclBYA=
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:25:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, Susan Hares <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 16:25:58 -0000



Thanks for your answers!  I'll clear the DISCUSS once the document is



On 7/29/16, 7:19 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <> wrote:

>Hi Alvaro,
>On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Alvaro Retana <>
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: Discuss
>> ...
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I know this is an optional optimization, as described by the ³MAY²
>> in the Introduction.  However, some of the other normative language
>> is not as strong as it should be to clearly specify the required
>> behavior (if the mechanisms are being used), cause confusion, or is
>> simply out of place.
>> 1. In 3.1 (Get Sender's IP/MAC Mapping Information for Non-zero IP)
>> the text says that the ³RBridge MAY use different strategies to do
>> so².  That ³MAY² contradicts the ³SHOULD² used before it, which
>> directs the RBridge to verify a duplicate address.  s/MAY/may
>> 2. Still in 3.1: ³Šthe RBridge SHOULD verify if a duplicate IP
>> address has already been in useŠ² What are the reasons where the
>> RBridge would not verify this situation?  IOW, why is this ³SHOULD²
>> not a ³MUST²?
>If the network manager's philosophy is have the network behave as if
>the relevant set of end stations were on a single link and just
>believe an ARP it received, it might not do anything to try to verify
>conflicting prior attachment information.
>> 3. I¹m confused as to whether the APPsub-TLV is required or not.
>> The source of my confusion comes from Section 3.3 (Determine How to
>> Handle the ARP/ND Response) which says that ³R2 SHOULD initiate a
>> link state update to inform all the other RBridges of the target's
>> locationŠThe update message can be carried by an IA APPsub-TLV
>> [IA-draft]Š² This text seems to say that the APPsub-TLV SHOULD be
>> used to carry the information ‹ but text in Section 2 (IP/MAC
>> Address Mappings) sounds to me as if the use of the APPsub-TLV is
>> optional: ³If the RBridge has extracted the sender's IP/MAC address
>> pair from the received data packet (either ARP or ND), it MAY save
>> the information and use the IA APPsub-TLVŠ² Also, 3.1 and 3.2 both
>> say that an ³RBridge MAY use the IA APPsub-TLV².  And finally the
>> Security Considerations section seems to recommend using itŠ Maybe
>> it¹s just me, but please clarify.  [BTW, if it is required, then I
>> think that both the IA-draft and DirMech references should be
>> Normative.]
>I agree that the wording should be clarified.
>RBridges are interested in the nickname of the RBridge to which some
>destination address is attached, since RBridges route on nickname. This
>information can be communicated for IP addresses with IP reachability
>link state TLVs and for MAC addresses with MAC reachability link state
>TLVs (each genrally within the scope of a VLAN (or FGL)). However, for
>ARP/RARP/ND optimization, you generally want to know the MAC<->IP
>mapping which is absent with separate MAC and IP reachability.
>The IA APPsub-TLV is, as far as I know, the only link state data
>format that can be used to bind together the MAC and IP address(es)
>for an interface (port), as well as providing the nickname of the
>RBridge to which that interface is attached and possibly other
>information. Thus, if you are to communicate information useful to,
>for example, provide a locally created response to an ARP, you need to
>use IA APPsub-TLV.
>> 4. In Section 2 (IP/MAC Address Mappings) the ³MAY² in the following
>> sentence is out of place since that is already the function of the
>> confidence (as described in draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv and
>> RFC6325): ³A different confidence level MAY also be used to indicate
>> the reliability of the mapping information.²
>That should be a lower case "may" (or perhaps "can" or something else).
>> 5. In Section 3.2 (Determine How to Reply to ARP/ND), both options
>> (?) a and b say that the ³RBridge MAY take oneŠ².  If the RBridge
>> selected that option, then I think the action is no longer optional.
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA