IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Thu, 13 November 2014 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <darlewis@cisco.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 E60371AD419 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:52:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 9iZir453DH8T for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F6B1AD40F for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:51:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1327; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415911885; x=1417121485; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LNHsD30SW2LSBGpvwNJq9sklvHhLH2MxfJhHuadg0Co=; b=IvYQVb1xYfRHVIlrTkFbxWzJPleGkoch4HfVFfew1J00l+/bnbL4FsCY QKqymRxTJw6OMWoM0yHuuqPwWGZZynmvF+wHtnvoZ5jU4pzwZTt1npBc8 g2K1KNPHMO+2MxAfkYRiA+eJU19O36FCZijF6m+z5Yhu7o9YBbq9+mQ4d M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAMsYZVStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABbgw5UWQTMaQqHTwKBIRYBAQEBAX2EAwEBAwEBAQE3NAsFCwIBCDYQIQYLJQIEDgWILAMJCQ3KKQ2GWAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEjluCBjMHAoMrgR4FkjqJZIITj3SGc4N8bYFIgQMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,379,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="368894300"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2014 20:51:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sADKpOvg011874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:51:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.48]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:51:23 -0600
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type
Thread-Index: AQHP/4OVXchtAA4VAUaiTBNCvJtFrQ==
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:51:23 +0000
Message-ID: <BA1C19D3-14F9-4F5C-AF6E-E3E0D9991060@cisco.com>
References: <BD206B2B-8788-4595-8349-18404BE0A592@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BD206B2B-8788-4595-8349-18404BE0A592@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.83.27]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <AA623A8EDF5E52448225F737636F9959@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/bsOJVCcrNI1j9Esn9h8M47f_H5E
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposing "Encapsulation Format" LCAF type
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, 13 Nov 2014 20:52:29 -0000

I think this is a good idea, but I believe that flags are the wrong way to encode this information, as the number is surely going to grow over time.  For instance, an (8 bit?) field managed by an IANA registry seems more clear, and appropriate.

Also, encoding the capabilities is only one aspect, I believe we need to indicate the preference of the decapsulator, as there could be performance variations - or even sub-capabilities (like LSBs) that are or are not supported.

-Darrel
On Nov 13, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been having discussions with various people and there is a rough concensus that if the LISP mapping system can aid in helping encapsulators know what encapsulation formats a decapsulator supports, we will get better interoperability in the face of the myriad of overlay data-planes that are being proposed in the IETF.
> 
> Here is the section that was added to the LCAF draft:
> 
> <PastedGraphic-10.png>
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed -07 and html diff also enclosed.
> 
> Dino
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> <draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt><rfcdiff-lisp-lcaf-06-to-07.html>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email