IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lisp] Re: Review draft-ietf-lisp-te

Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 22 June 2024 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <padma.ietf@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 5F3E3C14F69E; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uX0XQxt7clT; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C47C14F61A; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec52fbb50aso11999741fa.3; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719073502; x=1719678302; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=kXcQA9/U/LbnugE2Zys5nqAXVxdNc+R3OIdWSxJYouc=; b=LhuDn+Ww+tCDCmexP1LuiUIReoABxUKqXMqRJU7u5de0e9hQa3yku4yszpf2paHCMh 8jK2EauuxlPD2O60mhZZ+2IoKjlUwIwn3NYy/8bLxpdefBTP5TT1jJIWcKg0N9+TRpzc k94V0CHOrHJVtbOjLzP3g09ml1XslzTNfZ3eBSBWOSjqgUBVmEa5cR7iwg5HzA5fxrH2 kTg3HbgFWlkrbIOcTY3ZWpCAr+EEapObd21E+mPmPNYmYO77YGU3N9vjUGVnJtqIXyBQ V03f2c4RZ57hhiN5uM5sG+4B6AvDPrjooPagSjq7pQt+a+ZxtyB7oyPTdEE0WPcn9UYM JkZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719073502; x=1719678302; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=kXcQA9/U/LbnugE2Zys5nqAXVxdNc+R3OIdWSxJYouc=; b=htakxaJDRUxjfPfIUeLkBhwNBKxgHiBEY6nFGJdPt0G4sM+YDgkB6ITVUT+9WmNjai mkoxMa4sSFlmx6XPQjtHJeT6py2fG+9LILZPjrb6S44qypKIZPnfvm8SvacHjz69G61r oGPhuLmXE0aww6FA530sz3xpMwNFrR05Tm+nWldkuBo9RhdY+eBiOyLuJ8bB0HsTtjqV ePAaitl1xz17slpZ2h5/frmov5opaI1JFY7g0SALdgi8lUi6QHT5Y3Vj0xLh2YicmnHN LnjBte4wx6ckvc/dbmKvYMjuT52vjzrm/hIAzUNIigICsaupDl7wehs5WMGqWnxAKLF9 vXHg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWheZ9AFqUQ7ZvsvoN+V4Q84QdmaeuUqVlnjoknJCPtJ50xxsMGvCdptv9buUE4rCtQq+GMrSz5kDBsx1QoQORwlXLZw+wmoYHKC01sIHeYR/Lb2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwXIpyCleKXa7QLAYeozWMjQZsE8GB/Wuihfu3e+7+xzrRftwdH 0Q6X2ZVbj5jAxFRW8fyM81fiJwTVy9+n2OygYJs55sFW2vs+DnbwQnZHr20WnlgnLXGRSFc+663 /+4njCuIy5uEOtxmsHGAgRaXk5FU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHs6qcB32+dLQGcwomky4AvZA/WEkx2FLOlBuep1OZINcOW6NFDmK0SBYZVoMGOVVslITlEzTxazTGxmc61Rt8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:320a:0:b0:2ec:3d74:88c8 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec5b30bce2mr1575081fa.18.1719073502263; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DEBC07FE-B74F-4D17-A77E-CB5D19B108F8@gmail.com> <5107A452-EDEF-439A-A2A7-7830B2C77C74@gmail.com> <4917E1CF-4F87-47BE-B9A4-F05704B9EC62@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4917E1CF-4F87-47BE-B9A4-F05704B9EC62@gmail.com>
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:24:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG-CQxp7EC6JyvDPx_uKtBaih2RRuCmJw8XoDyUpE_o089EnDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007202e0061b7cfddf"
Message-ID-Hash: Z2PE7WFLHZ2AUKORL5L3O2AUAF6SGW5Y
X-Message-ID-Hash: Z2PE7WFLHZ2AUKORL5L3O2AUAF6SGW5Y
X-MailFrom: padma.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-lisp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [lisp] Re: Review draft-ietf-lisp-te
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/QYo0c4NYcRNPQetnCLQkyp6qw1c>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:lisp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:lisp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:lisp-leave@ietf.org>

HI Dino

Thanks for the updates. From draft-ietf-lisp-te

 Otherwise, when the S-bit is set and an
       xTR determines the RLOC is not reachable, it must not use any of
       the remaining entries in the ELP list and drop the packet.




Shouldn't this be a "MUST not"?
Otherwise all my comments have been addressed.

Padma


On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 3:16 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Here is where i wonder whether strict would have been best to drop the
> packet and not go to n+1 per the example for SFC where there are mandatory
> services.
> >
> > I think it might be worthwhile to document this behavior so as there are
> no surprises.
> > Thoughts?
>
> Will add. Thanks.
>
> Dino
>
>
>

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status