IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-10

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Thu, 12 August 2021 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 4F5ED3A4322 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 0Q4bqNP08O3P for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FA1A3A4323 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GltW954y2z6FBQ0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 01:11:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from msceml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.144) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 19:11:41 +0200
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:11:41 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:11:41 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-10
Thread-Index: AdePlfEkUc6zeCO+Suu8zKwBBcx4GgABqDOA
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:11:41 +0000
Message-ID: <1e30dd88b7a74a92aa21b0225fd414ec@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.207.211]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_1e30dd88b7a74a92aa21b0225fd414echuaweicom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/I3BlnMzPV1KqHO_fEpFXd9iCxFM>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-10
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: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:11:51 -0000

One additional comment:
4. I have seen assumptions that Map server and proxy to Non-LISP are on the same box. It is a potential bottleneck in the future.
DHCP would deliver only 1 Map Server IP to RLOC. Hence all overlays would share the same Map Server.
Proxy is a router with a low capacity CPU. It could become a bottleneck if LISP implementation would become big enough.
It is better to assume initially the general case that Map Server and Proxy are different boxes (not collocated).

Eduard
From: Vasilenko Eduard
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 7:23 PM
To: 'lisp@ietf.org' <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Comments on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mn-10

Hi Guru,
I have looked subject and have a few comments:


1.       The draft does mention a few times "without triangle routing in the data path".
But section 7.4: "As a result, packets may be natively forwarded to non-LISP sites by an ITR (the return path will through a PITR, however, since the packet flow will be non-LISP site to LISP site)."
Do I understand right that it is exactly "triangle routing"? Encapsulation in both directions would be needed if you insist on "without triangle routing" or you could delete the requirement.

2.       All discussions are in the style that it is "handover", not "roaming". "Roaming" has been mentioned 28 times in the draft but it is exactly what was *not* implemented.
I mean: what if the next RLOC would be from a completely different administrative domain? What if not just link would be switched but Carrier would be switched?
IMHO: "roaming" is a mandatory case for the word "Mobile" in the title of the draft.
Please, at least rename "roaming" to "handover" till roaming would be proposed. It is better to be accurate with Mobile terminology.

3.       It has been mentioned that there is a requirement for "multi-homing", but it has not been discussed at all later.
IMHO: an additional section is needed to explain how "TCP connections to stay alive while roaming" - probably "multi-homing" should help with this.

[cid:image001.png@01D3A7DF.E7D86320]
Best Regards
Eduard Vasilenko
Senior Architect
Europe Standardization & Industry Development Department
Tel: +7(985) 910-1105, +7(916) 800-5506

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email