Re: [lisp] [Ila] LISP for ILA

Tom Herbert <> Tue, 06 March 2018 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F071273E2 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:24:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HoIbiTHduMgM for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8F6C1275F4 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:24:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e194so759588wmd.3 for <>; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:24:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8yDwO0Lg9SEen6yxZiiiwUVpZk9pMsJ82vI4l4S1/NM=; b=xytf5ws2MblScTfifyS2Al6dEwqXtF/vAFLziphVKxsQMCGo+gcuAC134oFQN2BkqB hObH6OUXRWoYUPS2BmL4sXrsMEC4HFbitYlEeI1m/25ukGmW4JNktrYoaJW64m8mC3Gg JmvWsr3Ba9mV/DtPaoD4oD/Y5cTJcHdo7KaxDJnVruIjt59keNJzDaP4xo8T2C2XfBo3 Oua7FQVHg6WZDqBquN1DhBv49IL2QJMyyUoy+GVFnbH4GkXOu3vwRzyRx1FekR3BMNnc /7LiGBmoiya9VIHkMkAQjkNi9852FKXXSJJnGcKLSkJDHKxUECrLDVeOKpV1zYqo62Vx bqzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8yDwO0Lg9SEen6yxZiiiwUVpZk9pMsJ82vI4l4S1/NM=; b=BGgxsCIUpi4nX/6xnNhzLEijjliQbOa3yIftPwzTAVPnh9yrkDDWFwjPZADraILv61 cevm2PIYOOcxfj/VRJCMb57OIxuZaN73xg2MVQiJ+1zqv7ThDoRwpGevXJmllk2llYPY flLBZhUFiaKIKfZPO37oBoTBW6lpheSoJ7EoUeA+5xAUq8RQUYYQQJ5SKhbd7mUzrBLz g9uvWkCUXWke1QKGZ0L1BLBjxiEriWlNqkU3mOnb5QGGWbTa4RhewnkRDISPsf+1I7yo QQgHSgSttdOw/cRAlEeNsgIT6ekMMrsl7Uxb1zl8bjX0fp4JX9Ln7dj0kuPIDYxVhs9E YXUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FSBt6EI75Nz0plS8CM+MN6xDn6GLfV0xt2LtPu+Fz9uMDWTYmL Ee6SdHKMmqUwBTQkTZKPcFHvjpjohiYdb7CudxojAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuxMQvR6/4W6dtdVDE9Y0GtoOgi4CeTM23Lkd62E50uv5gI0NRUzxH/+EvYTca/4dIMbw/Z1/m1nYiHJkh1KD0=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 2mr9253794wms.108.1520303039221; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:23:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 18:23:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Tom Herbert <>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:23:58 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
Cc: "Alberto Rodriguez Natal (natal)" <>, Fabio Maino <>, "" <>, "" <>, Albert Cabellos <>, "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [Ila] LISP for ILA
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 02:24:02 -0000

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Dino Farinacci <> wrote:
>> Looking at the map-reply message format, I am concerned about its
>> size. By my count, it's 40 bytes to provide one record with one
>> locator where record and locator are 8 bytes. If we need to scale a
>> system to billions of nodes this overhead could be an issue even if
>> it's the control plane. Is there any plan to have a compressed version
>> of this. For instance ,if there is only one RLOC returned wouldn't the
>> priorities and weights be useless?
> My comment about this spec is that you really don’t need a LCAF format to format the addresses. You can use AFI=2 and use IPv6 format. That will reduce the size.
> But if you start compressing out fields, reality will set in and new features will be added and you’ll be back where we started. You want to multi-home, don’t you?

There are a bunch of reserved and unused flag bits in the message
format. One could define flag-fields to make the messages extensible
and variable length (without resorting to TLVs!).