IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-fuller-lisp-alt-04

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Wed, 18 February 2009 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D6E3A68C5 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VPAWnvMZuS3L for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266103A68DA for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:50 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,225,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="251517632"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2009 01:14:52 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1I1Eq9J008789; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:52 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1I1EqUa008045; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:14:52 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:51 -0800
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([10.21.72.2]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:50 -0800
Message-Id: <A71386F6-F53C-4DCA-A386-638A1CA95CEA@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090218012017.GA6179@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:14:41 -0800
References: <498C8B55.4010807@uclouvain.be> <20090218012017.GA6179@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2009 01:14:51.0339 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C8731B0:01C99166]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=514; t=1234919692; x=1235783692; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[lisp]=20Comments=20on=20draft-fuller-l isp-alt-04 |Sender:=20; bh=59ONGYhglikRqWdS0SGjHl9/X8oCc9cBxNpftwYkgWs=; b=mLNUd7H6+7ioGYwKS6zZzXvZUG4q3fyxk0RtzLxxOz5yVikvKwzkV00yrJ PVVWP1Yi3osuFvunW3mEEzvKUscvOTre3jQtFW6//5P9xilS8OYZD0vsfTec 4thIVZHfGG;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-fuller-lisp-alt-04
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:14:53 -0000

> The case where an EID prefix does exist in the LISP database but has  
> no
> reachable RLOCs is, in some sense, more interesting. Dino - what do  
> is the
> correct behavior for an aggregating ALT router in this case?

No reachable RLOCs and no RLOCs in the map-cache entry are two  
different things. For the former, you drop the packet, for the later  
you don't encapsulate it because you have concluded that the site is  
not LISP capable so you forward packet natively (unencapsulated).

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email