[lisp] Review draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Sun, 18 March 2018 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 4AD9B127275 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 wsEjOpA1nMme for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (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 57E6B126C25 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n12so16245459wra.2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=sznfjrMKLaVgHfP+7mGutChrw7/eoxb9mdz31/tI+Pk=; b=pQkqQs6d386ZHLVmU+rShOxDcXxXdbBxJCI1Tg7vMfuTfUog6Ydv1nnW4UZEUSd50r dwYlvltOTBuFot51g4ZZ/ZssLyAF13ecg7PAf5CRHWz3SXLFMe0vxkP0ajAF2/5ToCAO 2lAdL9SOzc6/uPDFDa5wh8ywjcYqhhCw7uii6xsdaTCNvE6BIr+h7jYg+EpL5mUrSx2t TCG/rhbuuymvvbckSQ8cwRE9nkSoogs20twsqL4m/oHIF/K5zQae/+gpn/ll6DVqwGeg ShFbrlaGB3pOWjBqRZPBp1NQ199ui1b5UKwTHB35vTHOJPg17sdW3Wpdf9YrZKOW+Hql onvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=sznfjrMKLaVgHfP+7mGutChrw7/eoxb9mdz31/tI+Pk=; b=KTsST5oydVKv8cbOJVWysHfA/LIV/lA0L6WFynPiQwig5J0+FvAJA2BwuRfIMhl/ef 1nAlccJdMGmkIvGl8mOaOhfWNKKmqYYwQJtVRwQrLROyMY6CMzlKj7LZ/2gOJNRLDWjK Xwb3pWfnpukJLfSgqZwAR6wGuO/vZpxe/XoNnxiuyg3ktzmkUHtuHYTl4qWvAoR/Mfa8 96scNpD2K/Er8yrNxMPneO9bhATpbIXylb2XLcq0Kw9o65SLEyu59PurZ7fymm8aWUSG JhH/S4UCkc45S384gSH/x6llBy89hDZJRm3me8IJAghmJdEaP53Fw8IQshHgi9MHho3c 326w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GliUJA8E6qK5codFD5agoJjRBa8JAtI3zj4ULObI1I5+8VIdl0 NchwGubSOrXexV5ocmxBheA6J/AS5R8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELs8jSthhchqi7CaNSZPuOtHuKgc/B9XtDD4wt4lwwQWwosqMgH0+Z0dpwguuAynj+FvQ+0Mrg==
X-Received: by 10.223.198.199 with SMTP id c7mr707625wrh.125.1521390927366; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:a531:7ab:91a1:6942? ([2001:67c:1232:144:a531:7ab:91a1:6942]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v5sm8172327wrf.41.2018.03.18.09.35.25 for <lisp@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1D845A1F-B92E-4D3A-BFA7-F166241E99E5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Message-Id: <650BB047-3B72-4C20-9FE1-9C11BC54FCDA@gigix.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:35:24 +0000
To: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Qb0QqVUjF4iZynbf8DDQeFr4GjI>
Subject: [lisp] Review draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 16:35:34 -0000

Hi All,
I did a quick review of the short vendor LCAF document.
My few comment are inline.

Ciao

L.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LISP Working Group                                    A. Rodriguez-Natal
> Internet-Draft                                                V. Ermagan
> Intended status: Experimental                                 A. Smirnov
> Expires: August 20, 2018                                   V. Ashtaputre
>                                                            Cisco Systems
>                                                             D. Farinacci
>                                                              lispers.net
>                                                               2 16, 2018
> 
> 
>                           Vendor Specific LCAF
>                      draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-01
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This document describes a new LCAF for LISP, the Vendor Specific
I would but in both the title and the first sentence of the abstract the long version of the LCAF acronym:
“LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)"


>    LCAF.  This LCAF enables organizations to have internal encodings for
>    LCAF addresses.
> 
> Status of This Memo
> 
>    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
>    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
>    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
>    Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> 
>    This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2018.
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
>    document authors.  All rights reserved.
> 
>    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
>    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
>    (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
>    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
>    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
>    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
>    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
> 
> 
> 
> Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 1]
> 
> Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                      2 2018
> 
> 
>    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
>    described in the Simplified BSD License.
> 
> Table of Contents
> 
>    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
>    2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
>    3.  Vendor Specific LCAF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
>    4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
>    7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
>    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    The LISP Canonical Address Format 
add: “(LCAF)"

> [RFC8060] defines the format and
>    encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
>    [RFC6830] 
I would put 6830bis and 6833bis as reference since they are standard track.

> deployments.  However, certain deployments require specific
>    format encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use-case
>    for which they are defined.  The Vendor Specific LCAF allows
>    organizations to create LCAF addresses to be used only internally on
>    particular LISP deployments.
> 
> 2.  Requirements Language
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
> 
> 3.  Vendor Specific LCAF
> 
>    The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
>    Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] to prevent collisions across
>    vendors or organizations using the LCAF.  The format of the Vendor
>    Specific LCAF is provided below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 2]
> 
> Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                      2 2018
> 
> 
>      0                   1                   2                   3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |   Type = 255  |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |      Rsvd3    |    Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)   |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                        Internal format...                     |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>                            Vendor Specific LCAF
> 
>    The Vendor Specific LCAF has the following fields.
> 
>       Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be
>       set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
> 
>       Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
>       that carries the IEEE OUI [IEEE.802_2001] of the organization.
> 
>       Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left
>       undefined on purpose.  Each vendor or organization can define its
>       own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF.
> 
>    The definition for the rest of the fields can be found in [RFC8060].
> 
>    The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where
>    different organizations interoperate.  If a LISP device receives a
>    LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it
>    does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST
>    be taken.
> 
> 4.  Security Considerations
> 
>    This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
>    internal use.  It is the responsibility of these organizations to
>    properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
> 
> 5.  Acknowledgments
> 
>    The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern for his suggestions and
>    comments regarding this document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires August 20, 2018                [Page 3]
> 
> Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                      2 2018
> 
> 
> 6.  IANA Considerations
> 
>    Following the guidelines of [RFC5226],
RFC5226 is obsoleted by RFC 8126, this should be updated

that’s all :-)

L.