Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS)

Dino Farinacci <> Tue, 09 January 2018 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC3B127010 for <>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:25 -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 D5FO85g8irWb for <>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 548671200FC for <>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i196so8495273pgd.0 for <>; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:23 -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=7IhF6i3kDOvgBpwr7ZUghwT4ITZvlyYW/sGHNxZKIbo=; b=jJlBvvZk28Zt8Vmyoj7k5/Dym/wkvzPdcsRxnoZiTw49TpttENDQ3WSHBihalx1ZlM giOSnMrkdOrN8uaiqDBv565OtlsO+EJj6nt7uiCswqEDXtSKIoUKd2DVmfiWq82mlWuz vbED0tqctnKizaw1nY1AQaBhLVUjOjoMv2z82EyOXXXxuQcRdBDsGo6NCRmGM7ZkdJQZ KMC9UT6vHkhUY76kAHWzftCKtYPLRYwtiFwjAguprCBcUdAshrcIramgU8FlK03R/FMk Uu5rjlb/XeymOfVR65CCrxFdHpnkhtcVU5N5ZQgriIsIKNFSkl8KI1yoRSOq+qLCV5oX j0Nw==
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=7IhF6i3kDOvgBpwr7ZUghwT4ITZvlyYW/sGHNxZKIbo=; b=VSjV0aUniOHcHPlVl6jvIrdzo7a4zFitCeqfHAMjmYXShEyHK5kMRB87DXVGgSm9pP PYF4y99kAfCj0RZSN0qADaw10vnPz86w2DtA0vajbxTVC0qjBNpPgHc+iL0uLEApGfQp 2UFAnMFwK+kJFhtO+XxpdnkgEsIfvFccQBi7WEovE6dZbV0qCo8hhRCk461YXQS0vlX4 GRRr3cNRVUvHIqXntakqpfXaQ7K1NJlQyMzh/JwdAiMIftdPph91085slpTiY7CD6Zfx xO0pqhAF0P2+wF5nAran6CC8r31PqKW15bU512+pynJVKIiAYM40qXucsAPccIRrkh+V h2KA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKdGNRGxzCSfjksXTY/HTRIJTJ/PmzFOMmRzcb4QRJVhL3awBhB vwiWsksNl8JTq2NDA/OPcdKi2Ec5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov3EX/cjte6GPO5WMG5VhstIm2Y8pr55MZaReSA1Xe1bAvnEikzckALlz+q2TqmIvaE/xDQTw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k184mr6613458pgc.378.1515520822903; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p124sm5939127pga.66.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:21 -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, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:08 -0800
Cc: " 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] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS)
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, 09 Jan 2018 18:00:25 -0000

Brief reply.

>>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or use the LISP control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in their data-planes. Hence, why this information is there.
>>> Doesn’t make sense to me. That is not a reason. 
>> It is a reason, maybe one you don’t like, but it is a reason.
> The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text that does not belong to the data-plane. 

The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage the elements in the map-cache. It’s the only place it should go.

>>> That information can be available in another document and still be used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane.
>> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in a control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830.
> We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer and easier to read.

> [snip]
>>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear.
>>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell me why you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward.
>>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else. 
>>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details.
>> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I’m not going to change it.
> Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert.

Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text.

>> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black spent effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don’t want to repeat text as you suggested above.
> The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review the text again to make sure nothing has been lost.

Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the -08 text.

> As I suggested in first mail: 
> We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce, 
> We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5,  RLOC-Probing

Sorry, I can’t follow these references.