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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 28 October 2020 20:35 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 56C643A064A; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:29 -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 bcp238-Pdrhx; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (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 D59473A0639; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id z1so182154plo.12; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:27 -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=l9/jxUoE80l6viMYS8ZtJAAvNuJcVTKRGdn6Y0HtsoM=; b=W+KxjyC9HmMV1ftxYhocEoGaCkelnJ01mdv3KthftxNMyh7XbzY4MMAZhqqNX1t7ue PAccM0ARIacvAS+5jbJGYn1G4yeLkZSAJ9eml4iEJy5BLkdMkfNX4h48jjvrIt7CfYH7 coYYGZPF2zwd/LgWmQ7b/s1FbLikdIWH6siB4VEcfA6+JYZZtyseJazH9IKTgR4imRjX S3iW1C/LFAmfBxRhClcHY7YSZEIuGLMPGjLs4dPvn79hUrJjiXqa/7fQGuR3sGSl+giH BIc5HBdbbThuH5jrwcMcB0TcETVRBnaWfNaywXO6WmBjJZBSW9zYxO99EdK03Rca4LS5 DRmg==
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=l9/jxUoE80l6viMYS8ZtJAAvNuJcVTKRGdn6Y0HtsoM=; b=FjPmjU0UCCp3m/1zWVBmE6a4+uBCkjO0ULFmNqr+iPcLQshfOS3WAKVx169ffpm69l u3xKOvSXXFv0oocKLZVtdnQHR1ztzWLLYOKnJnFXcNQTIwVfh0mGJxQkm+LVYy3KNOBd OuV37vmALs7IhOchG+9UGK0aytZSBpotj2EiXdF5XrMwghRpRXK2/KAU9PV3yO/kk+XU njJ/BzPPWFNjlLVVq6PNvlgMo49jJeWqj+NqA5IVcE+PXUPKXMBizGdssTnXTqQHOzqe rGFE9Kl7Y/fN721Fud2gBb9p1e+hoS+9k8dJvOvQyndAU4UFN+4jpCEtcFL+pxvKA4Pk z4rA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533pb9joSRwMg2sr1+dAjcUYElDtMoyTQrtuZ1PaAlGc16Fwjvrf ftSIYcLBS5Gon74uMOVEIG8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJws5Mx2p8LnzO/wbCfMD8T69V7t+cx1M/GirUbqTdmp9eCyCfzSnOateSe+EJHAT4Gmv7yJ2A==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:864c:b029:d5:b0a5:1aa4 with SMTP id y12-20020a170902864cb02900d5b0a51aa4mr1000247plt.58.1603917327227; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9600:af10:2535:e69b:dbb1:c83a? ([2601:646:9600:af10:2535:e69b:dbb1:c83a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m129sm457862pfd.177.2020.10.28.13.35.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:26 -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: <CAM4esxQQ5WtxkQihnRdLRP0G_Rr=YAw_r+DstsH_x-O=zVz=rA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:25 -0700
Cc: Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <076C52D8-212D-42F6-BB7E-27FD4DF67141@gmail.com>
References: <159407591285.9648.16019424277537020150@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAGE_QezhP1M=7eRnsyYD_rSrR4yhHPJ+W7jet0rHyZcTgLik8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxSjH35TDDJ-xW=c_zhx24Lp5LxS-b4nzu3qMJMTwxzCUw@mail.gmail.com> <8279C986-FF2C-404A-B146-0925B94A4B82@gmail.com> <CAM4esxQQ5WtxkQihnRdLRP0G_Rr=YAw_r+DstsH_x-O=zVz=rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ERmJk1i-lBQNAjwZNkDHlP_ktGI>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:35:29 -0000

Thanks for confirming Martin.

Dino

> On Oct 28, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks
> Martin
> 
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> 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
>