Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08
worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 18 January 2017 03:06 UTC
Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 1B8F41293E8 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 55k3sRwmOqzL for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C4B1129438 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-14v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.238]) by resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id TgaCcFBWvoFDdTgaOct13V; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:06:56 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4603:9471:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-po-14v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id TgaNcdnsNAV09TgaOc9o52; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:06:56 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v0I36n4I027095; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:06:49 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id v0I36nWj027092; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:06:49 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <80A31E3B-78BC-44B7-9618-2D35CB63C557@gmail.com> (farinacci@gmail.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:06:49 -0500
Message-ID: <878tq9oyly.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfHiSDUvMxIZxIbvei3ihHFEm1dIGZJeO947CqLa8Rc11Es7vruA26EqwOVmkfxzVQcmWXXxyQPmpjjy8dNWxkBuciPPD+8tWypqg+IImc7EgBUEprsz9 9m1MBzhhOA3Vao6HIAR8WgBfrak1c2mecVILOADr4Z4mVVKoDWn4mSjJQnM3bFgPQkEYykdzS41rx5MIOtPNbNGj7qhE86KpBns=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/_P8hW0ldmcKzZ2GkjyNWzo9wsf4>
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:06:59 -0000
Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> writes: >> Both of these servers process Map-Request messages, albeit with >> different semantics. Hence the D bit in Map-Request messages is needed >> to differentiate which server is to process a given Map-Request message. > > The reason I explained the above was that the D-bit tells the receiver > of a Map-Request what type of message to return regardless of the > colocation status of the servers. OK, that's close to the distinction I was making. The defining text is probably from section 5: D: The "DDT-originated" flag. It is set by a DDT client to indicate that the receiver SHOULD return Map-Referral messages as appropriate. Use of the flag is further described in Section 7.3.1. This bit is allocated from LISP message header bits marked as Reserved in [RFC6830]. But when I read it, the phrase "the receiver SHOULD return Map-Referral messages as appropriate" wasn't at all clear. I assume now that what it means is, "should return Map-Referral messages *as described in this document*, whereas D=0 means it should be processed as described in RFC 6833". The defining characteristic isn't the type of messages to be returned but which processing to apply, as a DDT server and a Map-Server are very different things (defined in different RFCs!). Dale
- [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft-iet… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Jari Arkko
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [lisp] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review of draft… Dino Farinacci