Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, that's a different problem, but I agree it is related. >> >> For the L2 SDN that does not use STP because it does not want blocked >> ports, but rather wants to use all the bandwidth, the problem is keep >> the ACP DULL multicast from causing loops.
> Uhmm.. not clar. Forget ACP DULL... You have an ethernet without STP
> but with rdundant paths. How do you avoid loops ? Do you use one of the
> IEEE SPF alternatives to STP ?
Yes, maybe one of the alternatives, maybe because some SDN controller deals
with updating the right forwarding tables.
> Last time i checked OpenBMC git was very confusing, seemed like mostly
> facebook internal adoption, but couldn't figure out any option i could
> easily buy individually as an experimentation platform.
Well, there is significant progress. But you are right: it is hard to find
actual hardware you can run it on without working for the hardware company.
But, that's because of TPM mechansim.
I also notice how hard it is to run alternate firmware on
Cisco/Junipier/Huawei/etc.
>> One might still want the ACP running even if the context of a BMC user
>> who shoots eirself in the foot. The Linux kernel gives one the
>> "macvlan" which is effectively a kind of bridge (actually mutually
>> exclusive with being in the a bridge). The macvlan gets a kernel
>> allocated randomized mac address, and can be moved into a network
>> namespace and effectively hidden, however, there does not seem to be a
>> way to keep the physical interface from being marked down.
> Right. Ideally you would have SrIOV to create a PCI-bus level disjoint
> ethernet interface for the ACP. Alas, today, like MacSEC this is an
> option only on high-end Ethernet PCI controllers. Or else you have to
> much around in he linux kernel to create protectiona against unintended
> shutdowns.
Yes, so there are issues.
tte> Need to read through EAP over Ethernet to check what we could
tte> share. I forgot all about it. But ultimatly, its going to be a
tte> small "selector-header" on top of the new ethertype that we need to
tte> define.
>>
>> You want chapter 11 of 802.1X-2020. Table 11-3 lists the 9 EAPOL
>> types used. No equivalent to IANA Consideratons exist, so I think
>> that it would require a revision by the IEEE to allocate a code. That
>> would really be enough.
> Right. I didn't mean to use EAPOL. I meant to document all the
> arguments why NOT to use it, but then also reuse all the reuseable
> ideas that we need.
ah.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
