Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Mon, 11 January 2010 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <darlewis@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 C01DD3A6951 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:32:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 xR-b9lvv9lFB for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED85A3A6926 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEABsZS0urR7H+/2dsb2JhbADDHJQEhC8E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,258,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="231972477"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2010 20:32:18 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0BKWIKp013194; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:32:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.153]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:32:18 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:32:18 -0800
Message-ID: <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A1C0F618@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B47C5AD.6020204@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
Thread-Index: AcqQvfPcv7cADXebQCGrbD8d0pFoEQCOBobQ
References: <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A1C0F333@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> <4B47C5AD.6020204@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jan 2010 20:32:18.0858 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B8DE0A0:01CA92FD]
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:32:21 -0000
> > I do not understand the two application scenarios and how PETRs can > help. Could you explain that in more detail, please? > Michael, Today when an ITR receives a packet on its local interface with the destination address of a non-lisp site, today it forwards it without encapsulation. To be specific, an ITR has a map-cache that contains both 'positive' and 'negative' cache entries. When a packet's destination address matches a positive entry, it is encapsulated to the locators in the mapping. When a packet's destination address matches a negative entry, the packet is forwarded natively without encapsulation (to the next hop). However, there are a couple of cases where this non-encapsulated packet will get dropped. First, the Provider Edge router may be doing some sort of strict filtering on the source address of packets sent by the CE device (the ITR). Thus packets with the source of an EID may be dropped because the PE router does not have an route to the EID out the interface. Second, the Provider Edge router may only support IPv4. So an ITR sending a IPv6 packet will obviously fail. The Proxy ETR allows an ITR to encapsulate packets that match 'negative' map-cache entries to a destination that can bypass both the above situations. In the first case, the encapsulated packet's outer header has a correct source address. In the second case, the encapsulated outer header would be an IPv4 packet. Of course, this implies that the Proxy ETR has dual stack external connectivity (post decapsulation) the Proxy ETR's upstream router(s) use loose mode uRPF. Hope this helps explain the situation a little bit more clearly. -Darrel
- [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Rou… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Robin Whittle
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… David Meyer
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… David Meyer
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… David Meyer
- [lisp] Mostly pointless argument about V6 transit… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Sam Hartman
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Jari Arkko
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Rou… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Michael Menth
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Michael Menth
- Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel… Darrel Lewis (darlewis)