Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16
Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 14 October 2016 13:20 UTC
Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17C9129684; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WY5AkFJ9ZlcX; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DD1C1293FD; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f6so77861072qtd.2; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zPW5mQJIrl9QAEWtgyQ+grQ3Jmx6ToBwpRn48DzHJ5k=; b=gtRinMjSXZPtJhyVu4GaMiXU6YfqlQWPITj+6vU1HWa77Ti/CbvoeIQF8XzDj1OPS2 R+qVe2K64Tpvw6/PO6H551GtdNZcp4vgfCyXgucxZPYdXZrTnk3M2c8z3U4KeShX/w7i 8sgagFzWxQETkdpbxH5erMWnY26tY+dBOUdFumTlAdcnXfZ935vnFswFr+fF51f5i961 hU5QwX23QFi6aKLYdvnm5bxPr5CnVvasb3KdjjtXr+P7O8n6zExpGeOIiy43hZQ3nc96 nWxtZlgfMciz3fceSqcW5IIqVu6XzPg47woIVvZHsCMQT9OppcbeSyHpnC8X/xKLgVeS 894A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=zPW5mQJIrl9QAEWtgyQ+grQ3Jmx6ToBwpRn48DzHJ5k=; b=bYu0IOAH9kMiurBoUJmKah646jlkAQcJ9RwmAYRqOeu2LwLW57TxhHrfShF9C2Fziw Mkgj4WbQgdAJW8uofyC1Z4GwDrmA12HB22YZhsD0A+depadfVsn1Byl01EzstopD83z2 AngaAstQRiJxDzFpWkBK+OF3M17U9NY4H44kr6NvEG8L7TdwIda6qm/UOJS6crt4nC/8 n+6ArqtBrIQkoyom7QG9Yg2cE9CaMALj4zCac5IMEgA7CQUDBm6+t0j79CGH5kEYIBj4 SUmC23IRqaUszOrfwMt0H9b+WWeIMeCA66+G6a7A7uWcCC67PI6D5Fp4ZkDbsnPHIL/T vR2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkFOOgfRZ7NYfphJGhZk2ldCEZcnmOxJqj2Ug+X027I/SKtAL9+KYRpeWl/KNwwQQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.193.1 with SMTP id r1mr1651229wmf.11.1476451245286; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.12.7.153] ([37.205.61.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pe5sm31919035wjb.15.2016.10.14.06.20.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00fc01d224e4$23cd3480$6b679d80$@akayla.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:43 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D9AE3A2A-8776-423B-9E3A-07543101E230@gmail.com>
References: <00a701d2234d$e20f6780$a62e3680$@akayla.com> <BC6735C8-EA9C-4006-B6DB-2A6AF245F2E0@gmail.com> <00fc01d224e4$23cd3480$6b679d80$@akayla.com>
To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0YfXubiyQ09RE2K_C4pCaFLBbv0>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:20:48 -0000
> On the basis that each RTR RLOC can be from a different address family, than I would say that the number of RTRs cannot be determined from the LCAF Length field. The length alone would not tell you the breakdown of RTR RLOCs between the address families, so the only way to tell how many RTR RLOCs are present is to parse through them until the length of the AFI/address combinations seen equals the Length value. For example, 3 IPv4 RTR RLOCs will have the same length (3 x (2 + 4)) as one IPv6 RTR RLOC (2 + 16). I'd simply strike the relevant sentence in the RTR RLOC definition (2nd to last sentence). I added text based on your suggestion. Thanks. Dino
- Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16 Peter Yee
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16 Dino Farinacci
- RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16 Peter Yee
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16 Dino Farinacci