Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon

Albert López <alopez@ac.upc.edu> Mon, 08 February 2021 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alopez@ac.upc.edu>
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 AB3723A156D; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 02:05:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 X6JoMzl0B6Zj; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 02:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C733A1569; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 02:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from correu-2.ac.upc.es (correu-2.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.92]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 118A55Xv027205; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:05:05 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.129] (174.131.14.37.dynamic.jazztel.es [37.14.131.174]) by correu-2.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 191331DF4; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:05:00 +0100 (CET)
To: Sharon <sbarkai@gmail.com>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org
References: <e8be627e-cb24-e98d-1518-60fe8e38beab@ac.upc.edu> <52F090EE-746D-417F-B9A4-573E72CDB512@gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Albert_L=c3=b3pez?= <alopez@ac.upc.edu>
Message-ID: <122a75a5-1a95-dcdb-8ab3-e957f1d13975@ac.upc.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:04:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52F090EE-746D-417F-B9A4-573E72CDB512@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------ECAF1C9A19D01919E11183D4"
Content-Language: en-AU
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/HMG8FDUfZ6_ruYBbVB1d1Q6sq08>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 10:05:14 -0000

Hi Sharon,

Thanks for your clarifications. I have some questions inline.

On 5/2/21 13:31, Sharon wrote:
> Thank you Albert. These are very good comments. See inline:
>
> --szb
> Cell: +972.53.2470068
> WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794
>
>> On Feb 5, 2021, at 12:26, Albert López <alopez@ac.upc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After reading the draft, I believe it is a really good idea, but I 
>> think that the document needs more work to be done.
>>
>> Some comments and questions that I have when reading the document are 
>> the following ones:
>>
>> In section 6, the structure of a "Nexgon packet" is introduced with 
>> the Nexgon header but no description is provided of the fields of 
>> this header. After reading the document you can deduce the use of 
>> some of these fields but not all of them.
>
> I will add more text on the nexagon header. In principle these are:
>
> Type: we specify two types only here
> kv, kv, kv... basic and default use
> v, k, k, k .. for large area with same value
> proprietary extensions add more types
>
> Gzip: is a flag if the k,v where zipped.
> In close by tiles the compression is high
>
> Reserved:
>
> Pair count: how many kv are we sending,
> in kv kv or v kkk form
>
>>
>> "/EdgeRTRs then re-encapsulates annotation packets either to remote 
>> EdgeRTR (option 1) or to homed H3ServiceEID ServerXTR (option 2)/" 
>> but I think no more information is provided about option1 and 
>> option2. The scenario is clear for me when we have one EdgeRTR 
>> between client-XTR and server-XTR but when we have to reencapsulate 
>> packets from EdgeRTR to another EdgeRTR I don't understand when to 
>> use it and the process to implement it. Is it using ELPs?
>
> The LISP default is option1 clients and servers are not homed to the 
> same RTR. This is for example in a MEC or Wavelength type deployment. 
> In this option the servers EID are registered in the mapping with the 
> RLOC of their RTR. The ServerXTR is just a tunnel to the RTR and does 
> not participate in the lisp control plane. The clientXTR and ServerXTR 
> solve NAT traversal between mobile and edge providers.
So, if I understood correctly, the serverXTR is registering its EID 
(H3.r9) to the mapping system using the RLOC of its associated RTR. This 
process is done through Encap Map-Register of the serverXTR through the 
RTR or It is the serverXTR who is sending directly a Map-Register to the 
mapping system?  How does the RTR knows the the real RLOC of the 
serverXTR? is statically configured? or is learned through an Encap 
Map-Register?
>
> We left the door open to a more distributed implementation for example 
> by cell towers or RSU. In this case there is only one RTR between 
> clients and servers.
>
>>
>> "/EdgeRTRs do not register MobilityClients’ EIDs at the mapping 
>> service as these are temporary-renewed while using the mobility 
>> network./": Does the Client-XTR send Map Registers to the EdgeRTR? If 
>> not, how does it know the Client-xTR's RLOCs and its changes?. 
>> Otherwise, If it sends Map-Register, can we consider the EdgeRTR as 
>> the MS of the Client-xTR?
>
> At this point we do not allow unicast between clients, only publish 
> clients to servers, and signal free feed servers to clients.

If no registration process exists of the MobilityClients' EID, how does 
the edgeRTR knows the MobilityClient's RLOC that should be used to send 
the multicast packets? (Specially if a change of RLOC is produced)

Best regards

Albert

>>
>> Is there any mechanism contemplated for the MobilityClient to change 
>> the associated EdgeRTRs? for instance repeating the procedure 
>> explained in section 4 when changing to a new H3.9 section?
>>
>
> Yes clients can repeat AAA procedure and are supposed to renew AAA.
>>
>> I think that more references need to be added to the document like 
>> the DIAMETER RFC.
>>
>
>
> Will add
>>
>> I hope these comments could help to improve the document.
>>
>
> They do. I will clarify the language and send update as soon as all 
> inputs are in.
> Thank you for devoting the time and attention.
>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Albert López
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/2/21 16:25, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> The authors of draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon submitted the current version 
>>> back in October solving issues raised during SECDIR review.
>>> No further comments have been raised and the authors consider the 
>>> document stable and ready for  WG Last Call.
>>>
>>> This email open the usual two weeks Working Group Last Call, to end 
>>> February 17th, 2021.
>>>
>>> Please review this WG document and let the WG know if you agree that 
>>> it is ready to be handed over to the AD.
>>> If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain 
>>> what it would take to address your concerns.
>>>
>>> NOTE: silence IS NOT consensus!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Luigi & Joel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp