Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support
"Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" <vimoreno@cisco.com> Thu, 30 November 2017 06:20 UTC
Return-Path: <vimoreno@cisco.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 1C53E12025C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:20:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 MXrzZpH439TN for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FED51200F1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:20:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23487; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1512022851; x=1513232451; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=071gFV2SkoC/3lXM9plmQXSLHCBPmR/nvjSE5gMkNL4=; b=eaAWuEu8fjZFtT5n4WgbEm0Wo+h6ZHyuX56NKkEri9AJOW969c7x6gDS /3FwIqv3ncBq/J8Ya/bTwFRSPMuO33FVfdyB4b/4HxLnzq2BgzjTeFXsd LXPjRdeF4IMmgsUe42hVaksEonYXohaMP7P7a+wHQDZGJ/YptYO9Qn0GH 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DmAACKoh9a/4ENJK1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM8Zm4UE4N/iiCOcZhzghEKGAEKhRgCGoR7PxgBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUgAgEDAQEhSwsQAgEIPwMCAgIlCxQRAgQOBYk+ZBCnCoInimUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYNBggmBVoFpKYMCgUmDMIM8MYIyBZktiSYCi1yJMgyTRpYVAhEZAYE5AR85gVFvFToqAYF+glIMEIFnd4dAgkcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.45,340,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="37732421"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 30 Nov 2017 06:20:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (xch-rcd-020.cisco.com [173.37.102.30]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAU6Knjh025247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 06:20:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:20:48 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:20:48 -0600
From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" <vimoreno@cisco.com>
To: "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <fmaino@cisco.com>
CC: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support
Thread-Index: AQHTaWIHscZfF7JJck2FRHekp70Oo6MsVuqAgAAAd4CAAAMCgIAABGQAgAAAxgCAAAG6gIAAG+qA///2xUw=
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 06:20:48 +0000
Message-ID: <E2CCB598-341A-42EC-A2E4-DEDEFCA4807B@cisco.com>
References: <211ad1ba-b5fb-b0d5-7001-0f91e89691b7@cisco.com> <F3E9C718-E68C-4769-9AEA-878701774313@gmail.com> <d861dfd2-a403-2e52-cea6-088f4f7e4077@cisco.com> <5f8210ab-3281-2686-c8df-e584173ab481@cisco.com> <53CFBDF2-3DF5-4A1A-B90D-4209FD251571@gmail.com> <f3cea5bf-8d00-dd31-740d-c786b3165e4f@cisco.com> <646859C5-7A0A-479F-8FB8-E37DF6742DE3@gmail.com>, <ef03ebdc-075d-6ea1-b712-004fe8557e82@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ef03ebdc-075d-6ea1-b712-004fe8557e82@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E2CCB598341A42ECA2E4DEDEFCA4807Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/dBiELKL3v2UN1pTjeaDX4v32OR8>
Subject: Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 06:20:53 -0000
I’m strongly supportive of this proposal as it completes the necessary specifications to support the L2 services proposed in the eid-mobility draft.
Victor
On Nov 29, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Fabio Maino (fmaino) <fmaino@cisco.com<mailto:fmaino@cisco.com>> wrote:
sounds good.
Fabio
On 11/29/17 3:13 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
I’d also add before the last sentence:
If the N-bit and V-bit are 0 when the P-bit is set, the middle 16-bits are set to 0.
Dino
On Nov 29, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com<mailto:fmaino@cisco.com>> wrote:
On 11/29/17 3:05 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
How about this wording Fabio:
P: The P-bit is the Next Protocol bit. When set, the low-order 8 bits is used for the Next Protocol field. When the N-bit is also set with the P-bit, the Nonce field is the middle 16 bits. When the V bit is also set with the P-bit, the Version field is the middle 16 bits. Details on Next Protocol field usage are described in [draft-lewis-lisp-gpe].
Comments?
much better.
Thanks,
Fabio
Dino
On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com<mailto:fmaino@cisco.com>> wrote:
Definition of the P bit will look like:
P: The P-bit is the Next Protocol bit. When this bit is set to
1, Nonce length, when used, is limited to 16 bits and the lenght
of the Source and Destination Map-Version fields, when used, is limited
to 8 bits. Refer to [draft-lewis-lisp-gpe] for more details.
The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next Protocol field encoded as:
Do you think the overall proposed extension makes sense?
Thanks,
Fabio
On 11/29/17 2:38 PM, Fabio Maino wrote:
On 11/29/17 2:36 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
The use of the P-bit is not compatible with the Map-Versioning feature, but an equivalent function can be specified (if needed) with a Next-Protocol shim header. I can add text to the LISP-GPE draft to reflect that.
Well it could be. Just like you did with the Nonce field. Make the Version field the middle 16-bits. So V and P can be set at the same as well as N and P.
Dino
Good point, shortening versions to 8 bits...
Seems fine to me.
Fabio
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org<mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org<mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org<mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
- [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Victor Moreno (vimoreno)
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Florin Coras
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Albert López
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Albert Cabellos
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Vina Ermagan (vermagan)
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole)
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support John Lemon
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support Fabio Maino