Re: [lisp] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-32: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 09 September 2020 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@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 E755F3A0F4F; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 7A96RcUMoPlE; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (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 B122B3A0F4A; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id p13so3843114ils.3; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M8cH9KTGVyXG+AtfEx/0XRGqrNmuo7DtcI3lsx3PG1w=; b=ftb9kjhBLKUAuwhoW5xHiFMBFSN0ePnrE/vsLyuAqfvNqopEvKMiBefV6whCDXQSr7 F/TtZwCRMpm0hXrpFdcTSN6OJGJnm0/A56H9P0hY3Bu3gVNNfFoWind62Qn1GEo7YOuj EyOX6usiCfJypa4xHc4cGAT5vAVojVyvkrecZNqVl91ZA/2/xdhzS+rJ91rJzoDl81Yu glZGj8owTbuqyaD+N/+QsTLXFJkXYdiDm2R4EIcGMVETQ8Xu+Qj+7NsaV5bd8TBEGkc2 uvq7duFgP5yUtC/nvVQQwbk/u9j7pR1sA5xVh6X0oknZKwduvOppCB4DGPSnMnvVNziG DSsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M8cH9KTGVyXG+AtfEx/0XRGqrNmuo7DtcI3lsx3PG1w=; b=irGnsumZG+LV1w/BQOfloi7OWT1ajwQIKAWgEkfWsQfQzGwfFmTJ6SUFFR+xP4ADnM cTGfBui3DZcOie3RiR6F7ej56N7E3c91mBiE4hMLR4u82K5pQC/tidYucei6u7UUqLvX yX9V3NvYgur8cxWuEF2ovogSQ6V4AwtpZAVLo/3Nr25hl0VYdyBA9bWXrRV2d9Nr5azL vMnmmCSWJ53CVNWVNw+lOlveUpMUSxfS7ZofjsEZCvIFeUI2000wYzr4CxvFuhx/+aLs 3Uf+r6bN3lyeIDkiROIl/xiZf0FO8qpGikqKNe/ZE6h9oi+O4fis7qxfpCi8R/r2/JUs yrHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315jtJkdYGxBgOMZip2YsE+x6JJKyU5JO2Q5MCQgywjsawDj18c OBQiqm0vmPm6bT1QZOoft8e72j2usaL3xyVsyU0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxF/TwJJdniJpQzIpo2yxjwd920sKdOV0ck6GnrYvVirE07rmEmSmhIPiQzSBwO5n92+Gi58qRFX7LwBVVsoXA=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:b74c:: with SMTP id c12mr5600422ilm.237.1599688944927; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159380321143.12143.6218644796105686951@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAGE_QexhF9P5p48qMv83daGcPUB7QQuJif_O__XtAge+Y=rvtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxQGF-Ppb2LLf_pHUVREhbzkUOotep9QaPWjqwVPHSGQ=w@mail.gmail.com> <59c9e927-3273-a0ff-9147-98a9d8b0f649@joelhalpern.com> <CAM4esxSf_uhCqUn0KGumj_6nzuj63DPyNz11mqD7Fw9GOpAcDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1774564a-c449-145e-8fa0-b3e6c178b4d6@joelhalpern.com> <CAM4esxTGrAFbbOWHc_R_ULGaAFfHCd6v7ky55JPUwZF0BbTOWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE_Qez_8FuazJ2McDVMnMV50mDq7VV=0Xyt=DhehRinyzy8+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAM4esxTRyjOs9Or2Nwu2F3Vvjh4q6rO26Qu9-8-9P_+ZRKDXFw@mail.gmail.com> <52a0ea44-92b0-306b-682c-9021c81e3a4b@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <52a0ea44-92b0-306b-682c-9021c81e3a4b@joelhalpern.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:02:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQaLhRQGDXr6Dh7tA3oSjBSni9F2wmNmjpzvGxfBpUf4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis@ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050480405aee89bca"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/G1OoSz7Cyjxbxm2gIHut8ioBpN0>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-32: (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, 09 Sep 2020 22:02:27 -0000

Thanks Joel,

Yes, that is the case I meant, and I see now that it will work just fine.
Thanks for thinking it through with me.

>Martin, just trying to clarify the question.
>A packet arriving at the final destination as the destination EID as the
>destination IP address, and the source EID as the source IP address.  If
>something between the ETR and the destination EID generates an ICMP (of
>any kind) it will be addressed to the source EID, not to the ETR.  It
>will go back presumably through the ITR 9which might be the same device
>as the ETR).  But it will simply be processed as an IP packet, not as an
>ICMP for local consumption at the xTR.
>If that is the case you meant, there is no ETR behavior for it.
>If you meant some other case, can you please elaborate?