Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers

Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Fri, 08 January 2010 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
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 226363A6407 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:54:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 oF+x26xCSmUl for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:54:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de (mailrelay.rz.uni-wuerzburg.de [132.187.3.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED803A6405 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from virusscan.mail (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA5D5ADAA; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 00:54:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by virusscan.mail (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A98A5AD8F; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 00:54:42 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-wuerzburg.de
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (f051055104.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.51.55.104]) by mailmaster.uni-wuerzburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CB655CE2D; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 00:54:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4B47C5AD.6020204@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:54:21 +0100
From: Michael Menth <menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Organization: University of Wuerzburg
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
References: <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A1C0F333@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A1C0F333@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:54:46 -0000

Hi Darrel,


Darrel Lewis (darlewis) schrieb:
> LISPers,
>
> The WG chairs have asked me reopen discussion on Proxy Egress Tunnel
> Routers.  We have discussed them on the WG list, and they were also
> talked about during the presentation around "LISP Deployment" by
> Margaret and Myself.
>
> To review, a Proxy Egress Tunnel Router is a LISP Network Element that
> would decapsulate traffic destined to non-LISP sites on behalf of a
> given LISP site.  Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers are not directly related
> to Proxy Ingress Tunnel Routers.  Instead, they allow an particular ITR
> to encapsulate packets it normally would forward un-encapsulated.  These
> packets would normally be forwarded by the ITR un-encapsulated.
>
>    There are two primary reasons why sites would want to utilize a PETR:
>
>    Avoiding strict uRPF failures:  Some provider's access networks
>       require the source of the packets emitted to be within the
>       addressing scope of the access networks.
>
>    Traversing a different IP Protocol:  A LISP site may want to transmit
>       packets to a non-LISP site where the some of the intermediate
>       network does not support an IP protocol (v4 or v6).  PETRs can
>       allow this LISP site's data to 'hop over' this by utilizing LISP's
>       support for mixed protocol encapsulation.
>   

I do not understand the two application scenarios and how PETRs can 
help. Could you explain that in more detail, please?

Regards,

    Michael

> Are there any objections to including text for Proxy Egress Tunnel
> Routers to the Interworking Draft?  Both of these cases are evident in
> the existing LISP beta network, and we have implementation experience
> showing that they are both possible and fairly straightforward to
> deploy.
>
> -Darrel
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>   

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn