Subject: [trill] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 06:33:16 -0700

Jari Arkko 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3.2 discusses several options for obtaining an answer to a ND
query. The section also mentions SEND, which prevents spoofing of results
by the bridge itself. I believe it would be useful though to make a
clearer recommendation on what to do with regards to the different
options on obtaining an answer. Some of them are compatible with SEND,
some of them are not. Also, how does one know SEND is being used?

Perhaps the document could specify a configurable mode where SEND is
assumed to be in use and then you could not use the options that make
this problematic. Or, perhaps better, if a node has been observed as
using send, then use the correct option for that node.