Hi, The use of LLDP in draft-richardson-anima-ipv6-lldp was raised on the IEEE-IETF coordination alias.
Paul Congdon (Chair of IEEE 802.1 Maintenance Task Group, and very familiar with LLDP) has reviewed and provided comments as an individual. His opinion is that this would be a serious misuse of the LLDP protocol and cause problems for implementations. The general expectation and design of LLDP is that the information contained in the PDUs is fairly static in nature and does not change frequently. Assuming the IPv6 packets are intending to implement their own protocol and will be changing frequently, encapsulating an IPv6 packet inside an LLDP TLV would signal a change on each transmission and possibly cause an SNMP TRAP on each packet received by a traditional implementation. I basically support Paul's comments here - I don't think that we should be trying to tunnel IPv6 traffic over LLDP. [As an individual] Would it be possible to carry some static information in LLDP that could be used to setup the autonomic control plane outside of LLDP? This would presumably require bridges to have some minimal support for a native IPv6 host stack. The issue of not forwarding IPv6 packets for an interface in L2 mode could potentially be mitigated by targeting the IPv6 packets to the peer interface MAC address, or possibly use the "Nearest Bridge group multicast MAC address" (i.e. 01-80-C2-00-00-0E)? Regards, Rob
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
