IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-09 from the LISP WG presentation

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 22 March 2022 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
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 954D13A102E for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 d_IGhKUVkIB7 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDE073A103A for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id u22so7990903pfg.6 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=g9mz7Oa+cY3ZHQCnbHmWuyKmpWrdjl1WBoYPUSL9dAg=; b=Ap7aTdkT9nZdc4F0G9uTo8uWdqUcBWWocuOLYZbUjQ7bFZmLcpa3MFfYu6jz/lUb8R CJq0y6udMf2n5JSdhdrFIhg7W4W9O8n4MNGpAOOfDUfrxhtbzpVMjOX55LHpuzc7g6O/ yfMaDlIOpX+F667+OCpaGTRWohn+SC8tB9Mc6I/s0Jd7RxMXlijRB1LD2rTxdca5Q6Y/ CwTjzrzHGJbFz2Exn0HLQn2dYqPixdaGaNQp+lR9hDCuvKt3Jdcc+YlJrbb4XKBe82H7 J3ZCtrCnekClEibj5ydbBME9TTdVD/YF9Wdtpmkrxspu8CwxfzlJ2Xd9evAjwHMhjyk+ 2CYg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=g9mz7Oa+cY3ZHQCnbHmWuyKmpWrdjl1WBoYPUSL9dAg=; b=EePlSyR02klk2E409MnxT3ziEt3PB6HPywSnGknEcdpn2y9RqdL49WGg3Ge8OI2PCO BP6a82CGVUueBkI2TwyIXNdIMOlhByQB+8mzlPj+LgBUl7739yHydxxbMHt8t8vtnndx tsLg+EerAuUB6cVz2ehwbz7hz23zfvFqSAZgKG8HlYNdrM0eQWP6lDwV8bnX4UyDNl/e x3ME3KYPaCwNl13b2+EXMCTctormLFo8EqukPLuLF3lPQpsBk4iRNb9JRKo1PFwAKw4I wYf5XGwvWGya480v9IVlslHM4wFQFKCZUyfz0QcjeMtjjRoXwzr2TQrRN4gT2B2mHoy2 Zucw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5337u6i9EVE5Hmx9g7J5+ZZhCmw1hVmkXpJpWYZuHGxyq4AzAKDV tZ1I1rNkbWXyop9Wv5d3GSmTe0zgmMQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxVrKcn2Qjvra6jcb5AKKZwzRfZH5/i6J8xAz7+ugPKZdHaIdI9ZdziOGGKTMQLp5NRxJS9kQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7f0e:0:b0:381:54ca:6fd0 with SMTP id a14-20020a637f0e000000b0038154ca6fd0mr23969474pgd.524.1647988307579; Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-98-234-33-188.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [98.234.33.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x29-20020aa79a5d000000b004f0ef1822d3sm23419893pfj.128.2022.03.22.15.31.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR11MB5648DA21EEFBDB0F4A7EBDE1D2179@SJ0PR11MB5648.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:31:46 -0700
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C6C3C26-4445-47F0-8C19-CE88AC9279AF@gmail.com>
References: <E3E18C80-51B9-4D38-A732-87459AF3CD41@gmail.com> <SJ0PR11MB5648E639AC3BC7D0ACFDDDB3D2179@SJ0PR11MB5648.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A14E39EC-048C-42B4-925E-91480D91FA57@gmail.com> <SJ0PR11MB5648DA21EEFBDB0F4A7EBDE1D2179@SJ0PR11MB5648.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole)" <mportole@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/cO8K43vsA2EXWOl6CS3STxHdfAY>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-09 from the LISP WG presentation
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:31:54 -0000

Oh that is great. What do others in the WG think?

Dino

> On Mar 22, 2022, at 3:18 PM, Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) <mportole@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >>        • An EID registered with the same site-ID (and merge-bit) from different xTRs is merged. If site-IDs differ this is considered a move.
> >Correct. But you have to deal with misconfiguration so 2 xTRs at the same site advertising a different site-ID doesn't look like a move. So the xTR-ID needs to be checked as well.
>  
> Perfect, let me add this to the updated version
> 
> >>        • For “discovery” purposes in multihomed groups: An L2 EID registered from one xTR and a specific site-ID, needs to be notified to all xTRs that are using that same site-ID
> >You have to keep a list of xTR-IDs for a merged registration over time. And the list is cleared when a new xTR-ID is discovered with a different site-ID. Right?
>  
> Agree. I’ll also clarify this point in the updated version
>  
> Thanks!
> Marc
>  
> From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 11:36 AM
> To: Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) <mportole@cisco.com>
> Cc: lisp@ietf.org list <lisp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-09 from the LISP WG presentation
> 
> > I believe we discussed this last time but, with the new perspective, couldn’t we just use the pair <IID, site-ID> to at least get per VLAN granularity in some of these decisions.
> 
> Yes, that would work better since the site-ID is in the Map-Register (where you need the xTR distinction) and the IID is in the EID encoding of the EID-record where you need the VLAN association. So this is ideal. 
> 
> > We get the same benefits: no impact on the bis document, and some extra granularity in the choice of DF or more detail when implementing split horizon on the xTRs.
> 
> Right. Agree.
> 
> > And just to complete the story. When we use site-IDs this means that:
> >  
> >        • An EID registered with the same site-ID (and merge-bit) from different xTRs is merged. If site-IDs differ this is considered a move.
> 
> Correct. But you have to deal with misconfiguration so 2 xTRs at the same site advertising a different site-ID doesn't look like a move. So the xTR-ID needs to be checked as well.
> 
> >        • For “discovery” purposes in multihomed groups: An L2 EID registered from one xTR and a specific site-ID, needs to be notified to all xTRs that are using that same site-ID
> 
> You have to keep a list of xTR-IDs for a merged registration over time. And the list is cleared when a new xTR-ID is discovered with a different site-ID. Right?
> 
> Dino
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email