Re: [lisp] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.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 54B5F1200D6; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 YEnqN8slfoC3; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 695731200D7; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2710; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1537474952; x=1538684552; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=S/kr+Agfs9ccBV36FXp7R4GAW+e/7268GvTWrqjCfyI=; b=G9j7Kyg8O0rJK4jHv5MQ0TgRHCe2nlKaBnyEapx31LJIxgAeJsyORItI SJTjnufAsfEKAMhVPb4K6jQ3FNUfZfGMs7ny6Uu9J++T96tuNpQn08p7X 4PhOqVlnYXdIAueSOFEK9jEdvAaba2cEWnTf3Fm7jcRSWcRUagMJDw+Ms Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AuAAAaAaRb/5BdJa1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYFSggZlfyiDc5REgWgllk4UgWYLI4RJAoNCITYWAQMBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJtHAyFOAEBAQECASMPAQUzDhALGAICJgICVwYBDAgBAReDBgGBeQgPo2K?= =?us-ascii?q?BLoQzBz2FDwWBC4lkF4FBP4E5DIIqNYMbAgECAYEqARIBgyCCVwKIRoYhhGu?= =?us-ascii?q?JHAmGQ4lbBheBRIRQgl+GL4hogwqJA4FJAy5kWBEIMxoIGxWDJ4IlFxGISYV?= =?us-ascii?q?eHzABizSCPQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,281,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="458298303"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Sep 2018 20:22:11 +0000
Received: from [10.32.173.108] ([10.32.173.108]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w8KKMAV8008972; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:22:11 GMT
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
References: <153738612868.21424.5753365080841918983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <c31f2457-0803-6a98-5970-10acf9782e10@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:22:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <153738612868.21424.5753365080841918983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.32.173.108, [10.32.173.108]
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Nuj19eaIyZGtpojKk_nHqkVYU54>
Subject: Re: [lisp] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?lisp-gpe-05=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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, 20 Sep 2018 20:22:34 -0000

Thanks for your notes Mirja.

I'll publish an updated rev this evening to consolidate the changes that 
I believe we have agreed upon, and then I'll work on those that are 
still open.

Please see below.


On 9/19/18 12:42 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for addressing the TSV-ART review (and Magnus for doing the review)! I
> assume that the proposed text will be incorporated in the next version. (Would
> have been even better if those (larger) changes would have been added before
> the doc was put on the telechat; please update as soon as possible so other AD
> can review that text as well).
>
> However, I think the text still needs to say more about HOW the PCP should be
> mapped to DSCPs. RFC8325 doesn't provide guidelines but a mapping for 802.11.
> Is the same mapping applicable here?

Agree. As pointed out by Magnus' latest email there's more investigation 
needed here. I'll get back on this.

>
> Also, I'm not an expert for that part, but I guess there also is further
> guidance needed on HOW to map the VID...?

This is really straightforward, as the VID is a 12-bit field, and the 
IID is 24-bit. Implementation that I'm aware of typically carve a 
portion of the IID space to encode the VID.

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Given this doc uses the last reserved bit in the lisp header, I would really
> like to see more discussion how the data plane lisp can still be extended. I
> think the solution is straight-forward (define a shim layer for the extension
> and announce this capability in the Map-Reply), however, spelling this out
> seems to be appropriate for this doc.

Correct, that's the idea. I'll add a sentence that states that a 
lisp-gpe next protocol header can be used to extend the lisp data-plane 
functions.


Thanks,
Fabio

>
>