Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis

Dino Farinacci <> Tue, 23 January 2018 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CA3126C23 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:12:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qO1ML9ZlEfE5 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85AE11205D3 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c2so2042363qtn.9 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HsJSMc3zpqYP5WoW0/s1KbN/vbCViTrgM42vCUpJXp8=; b=NCIqmsu40nH75ZyvEfGUDrSGy7jx2fAyH7D5PWhmuY/YbmErG+V6gR1UAIS4IslQ3y 7YV9KL2hhDM2CvXqQNx7V6p0qcXdoD+LlEFduUxsa/X7go7RHktmjM9fZofZW9iQYNMW Mw8NI7JmBDbKkSlLAD69+uLnl6GvpASEQlDio6xzFmQWl4GbeYMpe4UCJNwAXDOPJZrB RNyhtadz6uiznTfH9z5OYbhvygHb7irsYxY3pwZEgiX5z3EWfMMf9glalJmwnliPmmIk skOuNUZVLDdPYFfUUup10szuBslfwcS3nxV0WvUkvJd7N88UCC+8mtv9tVNkCu7Xad8f JYuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HsJSMc3zpqYP5WoW0/s1KbN/vbCViTrgM42vCUpJXp8=; b=Sqfw11gBGRq5y7zRZkyVjfSGRYwz/O2ZnQiJ5Xr0h8yOE8QQHJERIUM79zgWraMMlL TPTbeqgX7Gusoiulq4TrTEOPc8io6sbqv9LR15Ifv8ODtPIJ7Dkka+bKxC5WICPZT8mB i4vDkHv7fGcUAIagiuctf1rtAHMIivAK+wuIiQufxnN4RyPGp/wnSHP5tVmcTln41phC XgEpMDNUBlvgGnb28vlG2Xg4K4SLDjo6CeSG569OOMd15wcGuucrRVT5Ay+msogYlCVj /2fTOjFv/cT5n59MrUGsl33RymfErI0ZnZ79l5KvcARl8MDeG6ZouFBJmDVunMNH9kRw dgqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcfjbduyWnQTdbYn4jaPPTQ366Py7qMAQex/4i5TFmGgEmJ72an KHcqOaD8xMPXpX1SBudgUCQADe9W
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226md0CRkbGU9kq46l79l0xIV8WoAaLsBFtaGV9OJul9aB1czlIEZwezczPQxN62K7GbWVG3Rg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l19mr4217760qtk.45.1516720317644; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id z140sm11806052qkb.51.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:56 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:55 -0800
Cc: Albert Cabellos <>, " list" <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Luigi Iannone <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:12:00 -0000

>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ and ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively. 
> For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as follows:
> Routing Locator (RLOC):   An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
>       [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  An RLOC is
>       the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one
>       or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address blocks 
>      assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the underlay 
>      network, as such they represent the identifiers of the underlay.
>       Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to 
>       multiple ETR devices at a site.

Adding “identifier of the underlay” does not improve or simplify the definition. It makes it more confusing IMO. People will interpret LISP has IDs in the underlay. Note in dozens of conversations I've had with people on LISP who are new to the concepts refer to RLOCs as “routing IDs”. And then when I ask them to clarify if they mean “EIDs” or “RLOCs”, they say “oh EIDs”.

The definition above will not help with this confusion.

I would like to keep the definition as is with your edits from your lastest commentary review.