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

Dino Farinacci <> Wed, 28 October 2020 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C643A064A; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bcp238-Pdrhx; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D59473A0639; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z1so182154plo.12; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with ESMTPSA id m129sm457862pfd.177.2020. (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 \(3608.\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:35:25 -0700
Cc: Albert Cabellos <>, The IESG <>,, " list" <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Martin Duke <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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 20:35:29 -0000

Thanks for confirming Martin.


> On Oct 28, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Martin Duke <> 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 <> 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