IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67781A006F; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:34:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 SQcm8qJkqxTL; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:34:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com (mail-pd0-f176.google.com [209.85.192.176]) (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 EA5331A00B2; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdbfp1 with SMTP id fp1so8731246pdb.5; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:34:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YGuhvx/n7wsBdv7t9n4w828QSVgnM4Wpl999GbKN8yU=; b=mHDGAThN5soNOCDiHuUe0wGbGIYfaI5JW3Tlk2OMF9AwrWXGEVUjJ3K2jgeYiHzGLK 344EmmHWCqxUjX0PK7oNSVTIyQ/UJc8wnSkN7CYTCZ0JYHg2l8iH5lUObVf3K5KyP8el qDfINsexCONGqhXWbT9g5Y/b5QyfSfK8TOpAvCe7k5qEbMci3WQh3et8c8JN4do09Pwt tCXrx9m6aeCXc5EgF0QIHBeqzpTQLUAXbeV7E/knhgjxXaWAEedM9QgkfRiNLpUWEiuh U48m/jbvf8+PFTOXDWzOk2WzF0tNnS5nG2jiIeQMyBRp8HbdSHyaVDRfmevVQ0CAxlQC rOXQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.237.2 with SMTP id uy2mr7905303pbc.72.1423758872435; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.238] ([207.145.253.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z1sm4198325pda.78.2015.02.12.08.34.30 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:34:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936365183@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:37:12 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B998A6E-BFDA-48BB-BC91-5134A294ADF1@gmail.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949363650F7@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <806176DC-81B7-4CB7-A2B5-84CE065BCCAB@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936365183@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Xt1obSePpYJ6SYrM_nxCLrAFuY0>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:34:36 -0000

Got it. Agree.

Dino

> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
> 
> "can be the same" is fine (i.e., if the mapping produces the same output as its input, that's ok, but mapping is involved).
> The current draft text (as I read it) implies "are always the same" and that needs to be corrected.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:57 AM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: Luigi Iannone; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos; Damien
>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 [B]
>> 
>> They can be the same if the underlay provider wants to control overlay's group
>> address allocation.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don't care what terms are used - it just needs to be absolutely clear that
>>> the inner and outer multicast addresses are not the same and that mapping
>>> between them (which could take a number of forms) is involved.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:15 AM
>>>> To: Luigi Iannone
>>>> Cc: Black, David; ops-dir@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org; Albert Cabellos; Damien
>>>> Saucez; ietf@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
>>>> 
>>>>> G-EID     =>  the EID multicast group G
>>>>> G-RLOC =>  the RLOC multicast group G
>>>> 
>>>> "inner and outer group addresses" have been used in various LISP multicast
>>>> documents.
>>>> 
>>>> Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email