Re: [lisp] multi-protocol support in RFC6830bis [ Was: RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support]

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@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 E1DDE128AA1 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 OZU7GiWzO7rA for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (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 43CB91201F8 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id k134so2099120pga.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EbiJVRHOrYKuqfyT9bghhvgoRs5wCqI7Lf+fZ9FF9gs=; b=AgzwssVlyDUOgPq/qk/FVqYmqfK1/ankZhkRILeGuz4u/9XAbNBxUcgW1GSGccq9yJ iNStSLpH5HhbXvPPGKmXNncFVfj+NB9Ts0jdqms08lrb9A/v7An+5UMtAhNyBZRcDJnv gckg/Ls8B5NSJzog+ordapzNQWINlZslK3HPlSapRYUGIHvLkrSCxzwxcfnlAqA2qEm3 1gOUaqPpskZr+p9NEUggFFU0f1XrUgpNYN/Hk8dlE0pfFdOva750tX5bFju17zDwyD1o l8SYTYA/QERki3NI4wcoqesyoV1QTROrvNGvFSkScSdNjJtukcdTWipac+ZSpCU8FFUm 4HwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=EbiJVRHOrYKuqfyT9bghhvgoRs5wCqI7Lf+fZ9FF9gs=; b=q4ufuR4p0zTFvQxy3hq/NITRtfJTBZkYfOOLl2UyVcLuWdHDZGSctsiV12kSGLgf3M YS13IIKwK8w4RdaSnFGoJ5yHUgehJ4oO0GRDx4MNMJrQoACM7/BcExzQ6GmQLBiAeEzk vVMVTRfaTvWrzmNnQP38h23TAF7xq3Kfi1m0kmYUc23PAXnZaM/GMjRIiIQPZFmdqxFJ AEalByqmyELgPsFTGAafur9dIp/qYWlXZy7VTJmD7P3mAXxpm3ocke4wp85v0LkfLwak SH3iZYXeLjIfH1J0HK5K0sXoTIUJ0M1iFytzEXt3f2ypS/bWqaLNdWFXxyNynnAexZRy DmAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mI3Tp5WzkFSgk5XOVZnFkP211oIAZxTgiplD7EDszQTfK0stiBE tpNqydqqE8RkEtAG2LGOIJw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotiRnVA9YzR/g7Xk8k4+ZghDY4Tz6Ve0UAuD39M9r7fzsG+aRO9Dv8cBFDj3xgNcry/aSgwMQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.102.219 with SMTP id s88mr7627711pfj.191.1513206130741; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dino-macbook.attlocal.net (adsl-108-94-3-68.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [108.94.3.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s14sm5531119pfe.36.2017.12.13.15.02.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6987280-e872-8c36-f7e9-b719453e84f2@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:02:07 -0800
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <37D8903D-05CC-4954-B377-DF66D8500725@gmail.com>
References: <b6987280-e872-8c36-f7e9-b719453e84f2@cisco.com>
To: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Mf3ub0u0QdxPSaPrPy3AqUSASlw>
Subject: Re: [lisp] multi-protocol support in RFC6830bis [ Was: RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support]
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 13 Dec 2017 23:02:16 -0000

After I go through Alberto’s response for RFC6833bis and one comment from Albert regarding RFC6830bis, I’ll document the P-bit and reference this spec in RFC6830bis. I plan to send email this week with both updates at one time.

This should be the final updates to both specs. I’d like to request last call and possibly complete it before year-end. Is that possible chairs?

Dino

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I have refreshed the LISP-GPE draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe) to be bit-to-bit compatible with the data plane encoding in RFC6830bis, as discussed in the thread started on Nov. 29 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Dq18xxxQoDUkLX1Z_MCKaHZC1I4/?qid=a7da0673ad7ed2a161aa5f4334f96f19) 
> As a summary of the long thread: 
> - bit 5 is allocated as P-bit to indicate the presence of an 8-bit Next Protocol field
> 
> - the Next Protocol field shares 8 bits with the Nonce/Map-Version field
> 
> - when the P-bit is set, the Nonce/Map-Version features are still available with shorter (16-bit vs 24-bit) Nonce/Map-Version fields
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fabio
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> 
> Subject:	[lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support
> Date:	Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:32:40 -0800
> From:	Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
> To:	lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.org>
> 
> I would like to suggest a way to address mutiprotocol support in RFC6830bis, that may address what was discussed in Singapore. 
> This is based on using the last reserved bit in the LISP header as P bit to indicate support for multiprotocol encapsulation, as specified in the LISP-GPE draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe) 
> The header, as specified in section 5.1, would look like: 
> 
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    L   |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version/Next-Protocol    |
>    I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>    P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
> and the text in section 5.3 that reserves the 6th bit would be replaced by: 
> 
>    P: The P-bit is the Next Protocol bit. When this bit is set to
>       1, the V-bit MUST be set to 0 and the Nonce length, when used, is 
>       limited to 16 bits. Refer to [draft-lewis-lisp-gpe] for more details. 
>       The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next 
>       Protocol field encoded as:
> 
>      x x x 0 x 1 x x
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|           Nonce               | Next-Protocol |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
> I will have to refresh the LISP-GPE draft, and reflect the allocations of the KK bits according to RFC8061 and Nonce. One of the K bits was used by LISP-GPE to indicate OAM packets, but that same functionality can be done using the Next-Protocol field. 
> 
> The use of the P-bit is not compatible with the Map-Versioning feature, but an equivalent function can be specified (if needed) with a Next-Protocol shim header. I can add text to the LISP-GPE draft to reflect that. 
> 
> This would address the multiprotocol working item included in the current charter. 
> 
> I can very quickly update the LISP-GPE draft to reflect this, but I wanted to hear what the group thinks first. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Fabio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>