Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Fri, 13 February 2015 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116581A1BF4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:37:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 cYFGAX3Cl2yM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com (mail-wg0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) (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 8AA6E1A1B89 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id y19so15076555wgg.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:37:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=559kFsmL8iABEJOithuqgK66SQJcU92pqtFbmSxT/iM=; b=f1W0+LSQ6tL5UwBd7Mvqe7NCEW1QIhl/4znu9qAHp0PBh5KRcU0nHVB24lauxD63+D jxIEJXJX08m8TuLPFnC1SwX2bsTPsc1X05/w/ayATaF4vQCFCWYTsLjnxQGdwOLp2qpL mEmkKke+MXYc0njq3hpsAfPgGXlbN6YCbun07rzfUNGVqZ1vIIoKl7wSqh+TcYQtNN9/ Utb67yl1Zyc70llYRwh2izchqN4RCQ/sTI1jwGd6LU5w77jauQQ4bPtmgvOnQxa6/MHB IqbajMJ7sYHx/+WNPbvhoTrKWqol41kulPyagTF0nCNlr4TIqE+vubsjxPyYdXMjmCWs fTCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbNO376AouvNK3P2igVrFvr9/7DI95owekh7jtWj+grhiybJRv8F4VPSKtK1sXcFktd/9e
X-Received: by 10.195.12.71 with SMTP id eo7mr1746090wjd.3.1423816656867; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:38:89fb:2200:b17c:be6f? ([2001:660:330f:38:89fb:2200:b17c:be6f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hv5sm9101556wjb.16.2015.02.13.00.37.35 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:37:35 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936365183@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:37:34 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3AD27C2D-FFBF-44C8-8EC2-5FCFF9EB541F@gigix.net>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363650F7@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <806176DC-81B7-4CB7-A2B5-84CE065BCCAB@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936365183@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PxL7l-2bX5B7qpUUfk9-XvmsQ_0>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 13 Feb 2015 08:37:41 -0000

> On 12 Feb 2015, at 15:58, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
> 
> "can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same output as its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved).
> The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same" and that needs to be corrected.
> 

Excellent progress thanks.

So, no new terminology, just clarification that inner and outer multicast groups are in general different (unless specific cases where the underlay provider wants to introduce some tighter control on the overlay.

Did I get it right?

L. 


> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos; Damien
>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
>> 
>> They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control overlay's group
>> address allocation.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely clear that
>>> the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that mapping
>>> between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM
>>>> To: Luigi Iannone
>>>> Cc: Black, David; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos; Damien
>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
>>>> 
>>>>> G-EID     =>  the EID multicast group G
>>>>> G-RLOC =>  the RLOC multicast group G
>>>> 
>>>> "inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP multicast
>>>> documents.
>>>> 
>>>> Dino