[lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt
Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Wed, 26 August 2009 07:19 UTC
Return-Path: <dino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E47E3A6EDA for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.960, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_HTML_SINGLETS=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cgJ4u4fmYXp1 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2FC3A7078 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Files: rfcdiff-lisp-03-to-04.html : 151698
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlUFAId+lEqrR7PD/2dsb2JhbACCJDK8S4g5KZAWBYIzAQQIgVqBWIkg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.44,278,1249257600"; d="html'217?scan'217,208,217"; a="233187825"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2009 07:19:31 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7Q7JVHW028304; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:31 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7Q7JVm7013180; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:19:31 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:31 -0700
Received: from [192.168.1.5] ([10.21.68.117]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:30 -0700
Message-Id: <ED040AA7-FBD2-47A0-979A-8E9E0AC30DAA@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: lisp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail-44-233546462"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:19:29 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Aug 2009 07:19:30.0585 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DA5F090:01CA261D]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=159431; t=1251271171; x=1252135171; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Proposed=20changes=20to=20draft-ietf-lisp-04.tx t |Sender:=20; bh=xxVrYiQ4c15KvasWW67xDS+DpVBmTvv0gS5XSKEli8o=; b=athUKWJ9i+kPTjbbI9AXG1AjhEaUko9hVY0GPTzIG/ZyTPZ62n/vOPoIPF 18ghHsUuQD4qxPm/oQnIyw3TrSNUiVXOu0VgYffE3hSv9hQ1gC5TVj/b0oUF 6kVCM5mw28;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: Andrew Partan <asp@partan.com>, "lispers list)" <lispers@cisco.com>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:19:38 -0000
The LISP folks doing implementations have agreed to converge on a new data-header format. We have agreed that mapping updates should be done in the control-plane. Having said that, we removed doing SMRs in the data-plane and we have agreed to not do map-versioning in the data- plane. Luigi and Damien have agreed to do research on this topic. Based on this, we have allocated an "R-bit for Research" where the fields in the LISP encapsulation header can be used for other purposes. See the html diff file enclosed for more details. So with this email, we are considered converged with respect to a mapping update solution. Based on feedback from my presentation at the LISP working group meeting in Stockholm, many felt that doing the TCP-counts locator reachability algorithm was too specific to the TCP protocol and should not be documented in the -04 draft. Many felt that RLOC-Probing was a necessary solution but should keep a careful eye on scalability and continue to test and research. So RLOC-Probing is documented in the -04 draft. See change-log below for changes proposed for draft -04 which reflects comments from the mailing list and tracker. I would like to have an open period for comments and responses before posting the -04. That way, there is some rough consensus on the changes. I'd like to have this open period from now through the weekend. Then I will post the -04 draft this coming Monday. Thanks, Dino/Dave/Darrel/Vince ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes planned for draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt: * How do deal with record count greater than 1 for a Map-Request. Damien and Joel comment. Joel suggests: 1) Specify that senders compliant with the current document will always set the count to 1, and note that the count is included for future extensibility. 2) Specify what a receiver compliant with the draft should do if it receives a request with a count greater than 1. Presumably, it should send some error back? * Add Fred Templin in ack section. * Add Margaret and Sam to the ack section for their great comments. * Say more about LAGs in the UDP section per Sam Hartman's comment. * Sam wants to use MAY instead of SHOULD for ignoring checkums on ETR. From the mailing list: You'd need to word it as an ITR MAY send a zero checksum, an ETR MUST accept a 0 checksum and MAY ignore the checksum completely. And of course we'd need to confirm that can actually be implemented. In particular, hardware that verifies UDP checksums on receive needs to be checked to make sure it permits 0 checksums. * Margaret wants a reference to http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eubanks- chimento-6man-00.txt. * Fix description in Map-Request section. Where we describe Map-Reply Record, change "R-bit" to "M-bit". * Add the mobility bit to Map-Replies. So PTRs don't probe so often for MNs but often enough to get mapping updates. * Indicate SHA1 can be used as well for Map-Registers. * More Fred comments on MTU handling. * Isidor comment about specing better periodic Map-Registers. Will be fixed in draft-ietf-lisp-ms-02.txt. * Margaret's comment on gleaning: The current specification does not make it clear how long gleaned map entries should be retained in the cache, nor does it make it clear how/ when they will be validated. The LISP spec should, at the very least, include a (short) default lifetime for gleaned entries, require that they be validated within a short period of time, and state that a new gleaned entry should never overwrite an entry that was obtained from the mapping system. The security implications of storing "gleaned" entries should also be explored in detail. * Add section on RLOC-probing per working group feedback. * Change "loc-reach-bits" to "loc-status-bits" per comment from Noel. * Remove SMR-bit from data-plane. Dino prefers to have it in the control plane only. * Change LISP header to allow a "Research Bit" so the Nonce and LSB fields can be turned off and used for another future purpose. For Luigi et al versioning convergence. * Add a N-bit to the data header suggested by Noel. Then the nonce field could be used when N is not 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] Proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04… Dino Farinacci