IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
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 DA15E1A909C; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:59:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 C-E4HQjqXy8M; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B2AD1A9128; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:59:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.36]) by mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t1CEx4eh004637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:59:06 -0500
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com t1CEx4eh004637
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1423753146; bh=IM1+xjtK9mZHJtVM0uKYhzKpC0g=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=pLCJWxA7SinQuypPYA3Y9LYfzJ4B/ZT9JR/uyPAqhCf0ZEXNRNnqCyn7yPG7fEaIa 8JVPo8r2Gxz5zPngBWh4gZqT9GKpSjzzfZc9HycDGowbVv4aeBHd7tBVmE4vTdXNsw eDSBqacaKwcF+KOTsDoNXSP+SiE+DpkteX7R8mL0=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com t1CEx4eh004637
Received: from mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.21]) by maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:58:49 -0500
Received: from mxhub06.corp.emc.com (mxhub06.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.203]) by mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t1CEwqAm023962 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:58:52 -0500
Received: from MXHUB103.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.16) by mxhub06.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:58:52 -0500
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.236]) by MXHUB103.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:58:51 -0500
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
Thread-Topic: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
Thread-Index: AdBG00B2C5gGCfkjSoSGM0r5AEMtyQAKst+AAAp1mJA=
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:58:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936365183@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363650F7@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <806176DC-81B7-4CB7-A2B5-84CE065BCCAB@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <806176DC-81B7-4CB7-A2B5-84CE065BCCAB@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.129]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd03.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jL3IZVlbj9cUBOSgoz6D6IdbFJc>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:59:19 -0000

"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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email