Re: [lisp] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <> Wed, 28 October 2020 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5DC3A05A6; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aG8nZtmNPWEV; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8B5C3A03F3; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f16so824867ilr.0; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5ct9PsM1WIDM2gteMLbum3Db+l133wviru3vyw3dleA=; b=JAGz08Izfv6Lk1KZqLw9YIu9svHQ5IBLFe8b4VQXvKM8+raDIkfN7lHcByGMwE5Xyp Brg/h0Aj9Hgo99WrtNTXlKD3zaoXPLVqUzC8Ne93CAR/aAOJRECBzMlwIXD8FByHsC4d 0ZoHMHwT3UfApJHGi7sqq6wuPFUpOhQsbz24+cx139PlkLru9Bs4av2Pue4viYmA5obE wwsTrT31sRgtfsiV7M82zYoIc+iRHEIp9b9jokCdb1MUDomYmuNJRct18uTslybUHKdA hu9WsIhgFDqvwIrAac/bioWeXxcFElgvKYiuAxdQ5P/Bi32mruNTmEsjFZNweIyDB5np laxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5ct9PsM1WIDM2gteMLbum3Db+l133wviru3vyw3dleA=; b=B2ivcHC5y/ggi9wDGs3FcuJkSgnu0wTPJeOulB9hMTYsnDdcA8+KyzMJuvLSdAGtnT QwlJ6GjuReSZiV125SRQ3SSRSwoJmHrbDkRUF1kAHR8TuHZStDULFmOveqXSwCBTH68t I4XmyQPsZbP1E/7RgClQh1DBtckzt373MftbOPSczV0z3cHjJVtKpD+1A/mokRzc+uu5 SBRuav/dTpJYe0hRXmOA7988HxkTu051at1hjfsl5pEhRRPW7HavKOxqs0gomKlmKpU1 Xi12pzzfO74+BtyZU3GY0DKpsYzRJfeVY8iDgRELipBKNtu4SOByGfSzAftOkXBn88Gl 4ShQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Ipe3x9Z5gxOuxxfYUxSw0PeEHQKLaWhk2ucwWpe6PbyRNc9Px eFPCa38Aprec8xuh0tiIoPeAZehgFjCQCc8KrfCMAjLwP/s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzdO1mHppQHSFbLhK4Za+f50yr1tOF8QyVFNkfQSH8K3mZkYZuZf1HaVnjao6ptscWVFQ9ZHCguvM4fTClI1s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1388:: with SMTP id d8mr689285ilo.272.1603917259283; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Martin Duke <>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:34:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
Cc: Albert Cabellos <>, The IESG <>,, " list" <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007d241c05b2c116c7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:34:40 -0000

Yes, the design you describe here makes perfect sense. I did not get this
distinction from the current text at all. So yes, please reword it. The
framework you presented in this email is much clearer and may serve as a
good basis.


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM Dino Farinacci <> wrote:

> > If I parse your answer correctly, the answer to my question is 'no'. So
> in the scenario where the Map-Notify is lost, both the Map-Register and the
> Map-Notify are on retransmission timers. The most straightforward reading
> of the text is that
> > - I respond to every Map-Register with a Map-Notify (if it requests it)
> > - For every Map-Notify I send, I start a retransmission timer.
> Let me be a bit more clear about how retransmissions of Map-Registers and
> Map-Notifies work.
> There are two broad cases,
> (1) Map-Notify messages as an ack to Map-Registers.
> (2) Map-Notify messages that are unsolicited from Map-Servers.
> In the first case:
> (1) When Map-Registers are sent with the bit set to request acknowledgment
> for Map-Registers received by Map-Servers, a retransmission timer is set by
> the xTR for Map-Register retransmissions (which is more often than the
> periodic Map-Register timer).
> (2) The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify for each received Map-Register.
> There is NO retransmission timer for the Map-Notify.
> In the second case:
> (1) A Map-Server detects a RLOC-set change and wants to Map-Notify the
> xTRs in the old and new RLOC-set by sending a Map-Notify message. These
> messages are acknowledged by the xTR by Map-Notify-Ack messages. In this
> case the Map-Server DOES have a retransmission timer for the Map-Notify for
> each xTR.
> (2) The Map-Notify-Ack DOES NOT have a retransmission timer and simply is
> sent by an xTR when it receives a Map-Notify.
> So having said that, you probably still want some better rewording. Please
> confirm?
> Dino