IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Draft LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 26 April 2024 21:15 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 885C7C14F73E for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c2VIzC9iNMuK for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2d]) (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 6D2AFC14F713 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2d.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6a04bae512aso14897716d6.2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1714166132; x=1714770932; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=t+JvMdTSDBbTsLdwB9GYsBQ4DYWYzX70hP1syYXYCFs=; b=Bd32IeS4zpiVk27IeL/U9EecKZ781L4kDICzZpXPdHAV6yAUEGgu9kdd9OkU78JY0W GpD+Tofq4NYJ0yHTuAIp2Bt7JpGCvOfST9C0VFswKmB450Gwr6j1AU+CzGZRO40g1ZSv IwR4BTa+ljOWbV7N/g8IrOrP2SHaW8iVEuPD1zyb4r4YmiWS8828e8K2OoqYQlPkmbRy XQ/rkf4/w0bmWE22dTEDYmpqUrSP60im0W2H4I8l1P6XfJziBKhSCv/+4W1xRQU2qCFT CWSjFmVJnqIUnpkYW+g2vRBGlL66As8pKRFvW9P9DiIfjTGaP2NE0wk1e/XFVoQcWfQ7 xmkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714166132; x=1714770932; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=t+JvMdTSDBbTsLdwB9GYsBQ4DYWYzX70hP1syYXYCFs=; b=u0B7pgsdb22cUhMCbfeGw5QTbsjDptY76a2XNXWX67ZFpg4uEWJR20aX5Df1aJQ3GO oRa5VWJp7QuM2xxxQj+xwvzDWqSWyf9tGaVN2Igd8RC1mgKL7nCA8hy8gs7FHWXtrz7t CJ+slMXnJ0nOMM20wvrgQbYuDlQa8c2jRUrODv5yHPqXjBCzAwmqwNNgJ2wKPlAhAJ+C JJzX8CgZlTSussM8wU/EID8imavmVNxoZkBriiq8vRIQpuzVFgZ2CV6w9MaaT4WFcHK9 2wWsW7nVE5KKq+9525dSEx8GrGLtiNK8OZNyHkoyAnGmPXqwqjaPunoKgUPsk9W7tW6+ AsQQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV+ZVp/6XpEH3benk2+mS+wLLHaZ4RzKn6oHwTii/6OwkbPRzb9IYJ2gnMSqdrPQ1Gek/P8mCd1oVaqP/bZ
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzc7TcrHe5SGmPF/kdO57D9Gsqp8NhjB1Rh4VScRmYU3MGs2E6I u5vEehihIA565T+A9k7xAdDJ3mqAOqOPwOwI7IBkBJq4mpEMk0e1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH8vqXgHYcomVf6G6c7jr3FAlFY6OqIFzsJEvwNA9rVKnM2QxaoMuAHHZjgRiFyz/vHgwrzog==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:27cd:b0:6a0:3f86:7882 with SMTP id ge13-20020a05621427cd00b006a03f867882mr4711610qvb.50.1714166132102; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:4808:2d8:4000:2109:1098:f91a:30f0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f7-20020a0cf3c7000000b0069b5c6f074bsm8194311qvm.112.2024.04.26.14.15.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46b85844-252f-498a-8dec-caf70cd5f5f4@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 17:15:20 -0400
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F595DB82-2BE7-49BE-8FA0-A4381D405746@gmail.com>
References: <342E1E96-411C-4F1B-99EF-3364B141D813@gigix.net> <1D52EF56-5BB4-46C8-9FB7-89B02F9B6A19@gmail.com> <AD3EB7FC-62C0-4C42-872C-CA89EC971841@gigix.net> <434D1744-E125-4B70-92EE-D19BEC625A22@gigix.net> <0F914B6F-F91E-43B2-B1BB-DB2FF232B6FA@gmail.com> <0B735DFE-A8A3-4134-9850-3A20DAFB5A2C@gigix.net> <125E923F-C2F4-45F2-BF8B-B01532009C13@gmail.com> <847a43dd-9ea6-4d71-8dc4-596e12141d8e@joelhalpern.com> <8D26E0F6-0BCC-48DC-9738-18A4AAF0B39B@gigix.net> <AB5D0213-EE61-4918-9E7A-FE616B1C9EA8@gmail.com> <46b85844-252f-498a-8dec-caf70cd5f5f4@joelhalpern.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/RtGsmjPzagGGAGx6CczHJ_PJAO8>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Draft LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 26 Apr 2024 21:15:35 -0000

> I gather you decided to change the encoding to match some other work.  But you chose not to use a different code point when you did so.  You simply changed the meaning, without updating the published RFC.

We did not change the code point because it was decided by the working group, as I recall, that we could modify RFC 8060 with the new format from lisp-geo.

> Sorry, that is squatting on and misusing a code point.  The correct remedy is for the squatter to move to use a different code point.    Even if you think there are no implementations of the code point from the RFC.  (Which would be very hard to know, since no, you don't consult to all the implementors.)

This was so long ago, but we asked, and I for one, thought that was the decision. And I believe, that cisco went the same route as my implementation.

Dino

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status