Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 02 October 2020 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2723A0BA6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NCaLMvVEypTI for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (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 D0AB53A0B5C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id k8so1569567pfk.2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bY9ZUWOv2ECTK6456LZPBa2StlmiHKg4D0h1nWL7AjY=; b=cjq9kC+cWtoYXWY2EYkfJNPfF44/SjWVbJ5Pc56HGW/L1hXnXwLKyHtparPf2FY3nr Dq/j8nVqLLN7VOnXRf90xqA44YPFoag1rMPUDcjidfABPQkGyvg9MLHeSvVpGMjdNLqh ut4AIQpnL4qhcnXfkWN72SFv4L59XvJQQk+vvK6lh2LJrIohjC2CErWrS0JhgbZ4mMgl BU6YATaKSKYXPwzppmBzPWqoY5XFfF80CtADg1v5hwfi4fdB6TGQ7uWV4iRT1O8xvnNq NVZcd9WAxcX/3Hae0/RhPwG9BjBqf7Id9UAXWTyVX8eYUjEisCuEqQJyft6+4TchpH+M ZE9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bY9ZUWOv2ECTK6456LZPBa2StlmiHKg4D0h1nWL7AjY=; b=GvulX/vyN/q5444WousYTGx6NEVnVxDSfnK3aBfnfzphnL8+AdtB4s1mhzP+nunRiO k9BYSYYWBCFDM6d1oerR5VEhaYvYM77opuPvlWNBO8buNZIM1//rpZOvVxqur2MFqnHG OQMmPmbh1o2Trc7qO/AHtj8CT3OeVG8gk0LgXbNyk3XpNg21lvEuPgWALJhww0OnFrIS zDQ9dR7Sf97Bitzv90vpZbX6k7hAkTX66zH7pr20Bc50mmHj7NjDlDWXwH9ggsAaFQjn LawHsG8DdG0N/xyR6LvTb5NTWvpqrdVIr+evwM70d/5ezaVyzVN0C5EP5ve2aBvPIco7 sGbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532L7d4Zaj/kMarX6mfzzWXiL4/adW04IESDVb5kOTNbc+7u/np+ X9XuNUbYn0ppCilT4s7+rvCA9R8VD+S5YQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJym+tbZvZyW1ybhdQyqH6wzOJKEFP3kUFizTSlaFHXNG41MgincETxZl0pAmcbPp2Al4ueNzw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:2042:: with SMTP id r2mr2920201pgm.349.1601654651347; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9600:af10:38a8:c2c2:4a71:75aa? ([2601:646:9600:af10:38a8:c2c2:4a71:75aa]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z63sm2330153pfz.187.2020.10.02.09.04.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2020 09:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c2bd4ac3-7e14-c127-e563-d6018e54d70d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 09:04:09 -0700
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <115B0A44-F292-49E5-A7EB-B2B6B72FB00D@gmail.com>
References: <921b82e9-ea40-bab9-eb3e-809375528741@joelhalpern.com> <88FFF16F-1E5F-4B41-B4A1-D3E02750F9BA@gmail.com> <18C66CDF-7714-4258-9D0C-EF4E5CEBC438@gigix.net> <C85A0223-83A1-498B-A3BD-C878E73CB462@gmail.com> <c2bd4ac3-7e14-c127-e563-d6018e54d70d@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/DcQ9BNtYLqZ0E3o-MBNDLUYfvQ8>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 16:04:13 -0000

> On what basis would the mapping system decide if a full match or prefix match is appropriate?  So far, each EID has been specific on what kind of lookup it does.  IP (v4 or v6) lookups always do LPM lookups.  All other EIDs we have specified so far do exact matches.

Could be a configuration parameter for the instance-ID.

My implementations unconditionally does longest match. But the Map-Requester can have exact match when requesting with the same mask-length of the registration. Just like /32 IPv4 registrations for VM-mobility.

Dino