[rbridge] ARP proxying

[Guillermo Ibáñez]

I agree fully with Radia.
In the recently submitted Abridges draft I propose the use of a kind ARP 
servers/registrars that splits the addresses to be resolved via hashing 
of IP address. Each server is responsible for caching the set of IP 
addresses that satisfies the same hash(IP) result (a hash length of a 
few bits may be sufficient to distribute the load among several 
servers). This requires a previous registering of the IP address-MAC 
address  that is performed by the Rbridge (Agent Bridge of host) upon 
detection of a  packet originated by  host "new" to the Abridge. This 
mechanism may also be used to reduce ARP based attacks by tightly 
controlling registration.
 Guillermo

Radia Perlman wrote:

>I'm changing the subject line to make it easier, as least for me, to
>find mail on specific issues.
>
>I remember writing up alternatives for ARP/ND proxying and
>sending the choices and pros and cons to the list, and I'm not sure there
>was ever strong opinions voiced on any of them.
>However, I am quite sure the WG did not rule
>out ARP proxying.
>
>I prefer ARP proxying, rather than treating ARP like any other L2 traffic.
>We could make things a bit fancier, for instance,
>a) further cutting down on
>traffic by having an RBridge suppress an ARP request to a particular 
>target if
>it knows that another one has occurred recently (either because it
>iniated it as ingress RBridge or because it forwarded the encapsulated ARP
>query)
>b) getting rid of stale ARP caches faster by sometimes (we'd have to decide
>under what circumstances) sending the ARP query directly to the
>assumed target's link, and making the target respond.
>
>Joe...you seem to be definitively stating that the WG has ruled out 
>ARP/ND proxy.
>I may have missed some of the emails on the list (it's *really* hard
>to keep up with the volume of traffic). Was this debated and concluded 
>somehow?
>Or were you just misremembering? Ruling proxy out is definitely a change 
>from
>the original intent, and changes such as this should not be done 
>arbitrarily.
>
>Radia
>
>
>
>
>Guillermo Ibáñez wrote:
>
>  
>
>>ARP Proxying by the Designated Rbridge was considered an acceptable 
>>optimization,  right?
>>GI
>>Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Guillermo Ibáñez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>My understanding was that Rbridges would do ARP proxying and would 
>>>>>forward ARP requests to other Rbridges. Am I still right?.
>>>>>    
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Not proxying; they forward ARPs like all other L2 traffic. They don't
>>>generate ARPs directed at their own L2 addresses in response to seeing
>>>other ARPs (proxying).
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>rbridge mailing list
>>>rbridge at postel.org
>>>http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rbridge mailing list
>rbridge at postel.org
>http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>
>  
>

-- 
Guillermo Ibáñez
Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
1.1.B.11 Colmenarejo 91-6241393
4.1.F.13 Leganés 91-6248794