Re: [lisp] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Albert,

On 1/16/15 11:14 AM, Albert Cabellos wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Thank you very much for the review, please see inline my replies:
> 
>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Here are some brief responses to your comments Brian. Thanks for
>> doing the throuogh review.
>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Brian Haberman
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> All, I have completed by AD Evaluation of
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-introduction as a part of the IETF publication
>>> process.  I have some comments/questions that should be resolved
>>> prior to starting an IETF Last Call.  Please let me know if you
>>> have any questions on these...
>>> 
>>> 1. Section 1
>>> 
>>> * I am going to try and short-circuit the inevitable question
>>> that will arise about the reference [Chiappa].  Since it is a web
>>> page, the RFC Editor will be concerned by its long-term
>>> stability.  Is that the best reference for that text?  Anything
>>> similar that has been published in a 
>>> conference/journal/RFC/etc.?
>> 
>> I will yield to the authors.
> 
> Unfortunately I´ve been unable to find a more “stable” publication.
> However the exact same document is cited in RFC4423 with the
> following “disclaimer”:
> 
> "(…) the unpublished Internet Draft "Endpoints and Endpoint Names"
> [10] by Noel Chiappa (…)”
> 
> Please let me know if adding a similar sentence is enough.

I think that is fine.  Just be prepared to work with the RFC Editor on this.

> 
>> 
>>> * The text uses the terms underlay and overlay without any
>>> context (in the summary bullets).  This is easily fixed by
>>> augmenting the text in the 2nd paragraph to identify which
>>> networks form the underlay and the overlay.
>> 
>> Those terms aren't used very much in RFC 6830 because those terms
>> seem to become fashionable with the advent of nv03. If the authors
>> want to continue to use those terms, I have no problem with that,
>> but would suggest that the Definition of Terms section say that the
>> underlay is what is referred to in RFC 6830 as "the underlying core
>> routing system". And that an "overlay" is the encapsulation
>> relationship between ITRs, ETRs, PxTRs, and RTRs.
> 
> I think that the second paragraph already introduces many new and
> important concepts, what about updating the first two bullet points?
> 
> o  RLOCs have meaning only in the underlay network, **that is the
> underlying core routing system.**
> 
> o  EIDs have meaning only in the overlay network unless they are
> leaked into the underlay network. **The overlay is the encapsulation
> relationship between LISP-capable routers.**

That works.

> 
>> 
>>> 2. Section 3 (and a few times in 3.5) :
>>> s/inetrworking/internetworking/
>>> 
> 
> Thanks for catching this typo.
> 
>>> 3. Section 3.2
>>> 
>>> * Is it correct to say that EIDs are only routable at the edge?
>>> This seems to contradict the text in section 3.5 that says EIDs
>>> may be injected in the global routing system.
>> 
>> Well it depends on your reference point. If the overlay is the
>> center of perspective, then the global routing system is a non-LISP
>> site relative to the overlay. The whole point is that EIDs are
>> routable where LISP is not available. And that is true inside of a
>> LISP site where packets are at a point in the data-path
>> pre-encapsulation or post-decapsulation.
>> 
> 
> What about changing the last sentence to:
> 
> Because of this, EIDs are usually routable at the edge (within LISP
> sites) or in the non-LISP Internet.

Yes.

> 
>>> * I find the PI and PA analogies misleading.  EIDs are global,
>>> but they may change their point of attachment.  If that occurs,
>>> you are not guaranteed that your EID space does not change.
>> 
>> It is desirable that your EIDs do not change. But the scope of EID
>> mobility may be limited and if a legacy site wants to continue to
>> use DHCP and address addresses out of, say an enterprise address
>> pool, it should be able to do that while losing session
>> survivability features. That is a decision for the organization
>> that is supporting mobility into its own domain.
> 
> I suggest removing both analogies (PI and PA), two sentences
> overall.
> 

Ok.

>> 
>>> * In the example, bullet four mistakenly says that the
>>> destination address of the outer header is set to RLOC_B2 (it
>>> should be RLOC_b1).
>>> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>> 4. Section 3.3.1 introduces the term RTR (Reencapsulating Tunnel 
>>> Routers) with no real description of how it functions or relates
>>> to ITRs and ETRs.
>> 
>> Well there are references to it in RFC 6830 and there are many
>> use-cases for them which we are not allowed to reference since the
>> drafts are not working group documents.
>> 
> 
> What about extending the last sentence of the paragraph?
> 
> Typically such functions are implemented by Reencapsulating Tunnel
> Routers (RTRs), **An RTR can be thought as a router that first acts
> as an ETR by decapsulating packets and then as an ITR by
> encapsulating them towards another locator.**
> 

The above plus a reference to 6830 would be good.

> 
>>> 5. Section 3.4.3 makes reference to the LISP WG.  Given that
>>> this document will probably outlive the WG, I would suggest
>>> re-wording to remove a direct reference to the WG.
> 
> Updated sentence:
> 
> Many of the existing mechanisms to create distributed systems have
> been explored and considered for the Mapping System architecture:

Yes.

> 
>>> 
>>> 6. Section 3.4 has no discussion of EIDs and NATs.  Given the
>>> global nature of the mapping system, it would seem that NATs
>>> don't play well with LISP.  There should be some discussion of
>>> that.
>> 
>> LISP plays very well with NATs and we have many use-cases which are
>> alive and being used. But again the draft on  NAT-traversal is not
>> a working group document so it is hard to reference it. EIDs are
>> translatable by NATs and so are RLOCs. It all depends where the xTR
>> resides (on the public versus private side of the NAT).
> 
> I will add a paragraph summarizing section 7 of RFC6832 at the end of
> section 3.5.
> 

Sounds good.

>> 
>>> 7. Section 4.1
>>> 
>>> * s/requires of a /requires a/
>>> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>> * The discussion of SMR should contain a reference to 6830 or a
>>> brief discussion of how the SMR is used.
>>> 
> 
> Could you please elaborate further this comment?
> 
> "Solicit-Map-Request (SMR):  SMR is an explicit mechanism to update 
> mapping information.  In particular a special type of Map-Request can
> be sent on demand by ETRs to request refreshing a mapping. Upon
> reception of a SMR message, the ITR must refresh the bindings by
> sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System."

There are more interesting conditions/rules for the use of SMR that are
only found in RFC 6830.  I am suggesting adding a reference to 6830 at
this point so readers know where to go to find more info on the SMR.

> 
>>> 8. Section 5
>>> 
>>> * I would suggest having a reference to both the MIP and the NEMO
>>> specs when discussing mobility.  LISP has the potential to
>>> operate in a manner conducive with NEMO if the xTR acts as the
>>> NEMO Mobile Router.
>> 
>> Well if we do that then there are a ton of other cases where a xTR
>> can be co-located with other functions (i.e. a simple reference is
>> say a wifi AP). So singlingly out MIP/NEMO seems to be favoring
>> these technologies versus others. Why would we want to do that?
>> 
>> Plus, it raises questions more than simplifies the understanding of
>> LISP. This is an intro document.
> 
> What about adding the following sentence at the end of section 5?
> 
> The decoupled identity and location provided by LISP allows it to
> operate with other layer 2 and layer 3 mobility solutions.

The text talks about both network (NEMO) and host (MIP) mobility.  I am
not concerned with LISP interacting with those protocols, I am thinking
of how LISP replaces those protocols.  The descriptions in Section 5
align with very well (i.e., the first paragraph describes LISP replacing
NEMO and the second paragraph describes LISP replacing MIP).  My
proposal was to simply add references in those paragraphs to the
mobility protocol that LISP is approximately.

I do like your proposed addition in order to highlight that LISP will
not interfere with other mobility solutions.

> 
>> 
>>> * Should there be some discussion of the mapping system's TTL
>>> mechanism impact on mobility support?
>> 
>> The TTL is not used for mobility to work. It is the SMR and
>> Map-Notify mechanisms between xTRs and the mapping system and xTRs,
>> respectively.
> 
> True, but mappings from LISP mobile nodes are expected to have a low
> TTL (1 min), what about updating the last paragraph to:
> 
> Whenever the device changes of RLOC, the xTR updates the RLOC of its 
> local mapping and registers it to its Map-Server, **typically with a
> low TTL value (1min)**.  To avoid the need of a home gateway, the ITR
> also indicates the RLOC change to all remote devices that have
> ongoing communications with the device that moved. The combination of
> both methods ensures the scalability of the system as signaling is
> strictly limited the Map-Server and to hosts with which
> communications are ongoing.

The above would be good.

>> 
>>> 9. Section 9 talks about propagating multicast state as (S-EID,
>>> G). Does that mean that multicast in LISP is really only allowed
>>> to be SSM?
>> 
>> We are encouraging SSM but an (RP-EID, G) can be used as well. RFC
>> 6831 describes all PIM modes.
>> 
> 
> What about rephrasing the last sentence of the Multicast section:
> 
> LISP [RFC6831] supports all PIM modes, additionally LISP can also
> support non-PIM mechanisms to maintain multicast state.
> 

Yes.

> 
>>> 10. I am surprised that there are 2 Security Consideration
>>> sections (7 & 9).  I am even more surprised that one says
>>> "Nothing new here" and the other actually discusses potential
>>> issues with the LISP approach.
>>> 
> 
> My fault, Section 7 should be “LISP Security Considerations”
> 
> Section 9 describes the security considerations for the document
> itself.

I think maintaining two security consideration sections will be
confusing.  Either document that *this* document introduces no new
security issues or have the security considerations section summarize
the security impacts of LISP.

Regards,
Brian