IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 02 October 2020 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 30F183A1104 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.311 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 bLGHRfWrCGvl for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35D953A10F9 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2wJ40139z1pC7C; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1601655748; bh=U2vfCj8d6qvKB/leRrlWSBFNLugGvtlGs6Sx+UmZerY=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=VS8PNlkR1+NTJP0za5F1hqq5tC1uL0spefzqCrwUTPRZjFsFHrODiBwxIIYpa4GVB dAjjs2Tb57bzN+6LstITTGuLeavoxY+y+iMBwDlZxoTYyC+tM2ymW/sIbb6+0A4AFf A4N5EPpi16QqgA8ADNSk9plFZSXSd033cDJsW12g=
X-Quarantine-ID: <KF-cqtIw2KTH>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C2wJ332pWz1pC79; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 09:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <921b82e9-ea40-bab9-eb3e-809375528741@joelhalpern.com> <88FFF16F-1E5F-4B41-B4A1-D3E02750F9BA@gmail.com> <18C66CDF-7714-4258-9D0C-EF4E5CEBC438@gigix.net> <C85A0223-83A1-498B-A3BD-C878E73CB462@gmail.com> <c2bd4ac3-7e14-c127-e563-d6018e54d70d@joelhalpern.com> <115B0A44-F292-49E5-A7EB-B2B6B72FB00D@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <0c3ed7ea-be05-805d-7cdd-57f7d0aaeb23@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 12:22:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <115B0A44-F292-49E5-A7EB-B2B6B72FB00D@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/KWGZhB-6js5G1OmJzEN_z2L-JY8>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for WG document - draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 16:22:29 -0000

One can do many things on an ad-hoc basis.
But if we are telling people how to implement mapping systems, we have 
to tell them what they need to do.
And if people are using mapping systems, they have to know what they can 
expect from the mapping system.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/2/2020 12:04 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> On what basis would the mapping system decide if a full match or prefix match is appropriate?  So far, each EID has been specific on what kind of lookup it does.  IP (v4 or v6) lookups always do LPM lookups.  All other EIDs we have specified so far do exact matches.
> 
> Could be a configuration parameter for the instance-ID.
> 
> My implementations unconditionally does longest match. But the Map-Requester can have exact match when requesting with the same mask-length of the registration. Just like /32 IPv4 registrations for VM-mobility.
> 
> Dino
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email