IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 09 August 2018 16:15 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 27374130E5C; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 c63DylPzbez0; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 A56F7130E63; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id f1-v6so2955885pgq.12; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=P93/LgHPGjrrLIxy4iMQk++ZD4YlhbFcfjCNevFYCEM=; b=lv2zED4Eg9erPwGgzEWPcuWaS/fsPRbqE60UOllDTM0p7O1+8YQRsPmhxnRXtbB/zN UOLv4r45K0XljdP4mZWxknQAJuHd9a7N9ChRTVyjxm8UpAzNTQ84ZvaI3tZa1M3FfoKl C96SSCdTiCHO4RBJGX1EQckkZ9mPj9jU9J4BHjL8GHnMSKsBW0N04jDJkm/vFx5uDvil VQClCP0ULHlvhAmB/8JPidzBH+xvkRz6C7LCc34qTWiNaTeQpp1UjEx3gX742ZZDuhMW r8/cwOg0i81+0FS3l4n51Yi7A4zJypeTLGLhkTF56JgxxQ53qxIWYkNTCOJONfUPhW1y pvfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=P93/LgHPGjrrLIxy4iMQk++ZD4YlhbFcfjCNevFYCEM=; b=UCHGHwYS1griepdKe5e3bDfZvJcBPsoYt3PnPO0xxn4rSeV+ZLwmWt/nj9hgLQ7h+4 UxCN7D8YnnnucxvBHhCGHM5svEdQOJMKKqj7Ckt/zEPuxCA/Ag0mSS/Ka1vnGGvGj7Fg thkvSNCUYRT2SeFHYf4uzhDcMkrQv39MKRRytJLhnrVIKLDj2NDbm3Ups0Pwuoyl+ZqS Iqm6WtDRrfcT1ABMM+aFRlTa3xQCi5dYf53bjybyeIWguE8NfbQObl3A32FVs4XNIz++ //t5F0zpslgaS3wfHkAIKaBt1rMH5AEoSyKh6k/HYstcKmnjRt808QzbZWNgnjJXhU9F qErA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG2FC/d/WwJQnrFackEguzrl+BSw+I52n5psuJoHgYpCWhL8Flw FbMOBpCgWXWCr7myO/YGxBULrSeA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPyg+JRwHFsSVQ1YfGPneRRw5np1gkzFnsHSnzG1imEEQ1stsompW8nUTiglo/Deq3YpClHVdw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:ca09:: with SMTP id n9-v6mr2719980pgi.287.1533831342325; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.31.79.47] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n12-v6sm19122996pfh.146.2018.08.09.09.15.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Aug 2018 09:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <153383075580.28970.16196543565444262922@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:15:40 -0700
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.all@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DB2EC441-FED8-4B2B-84C7-30D75318BE75@gmail.com>
References: <153383075580.28970.16196543565444262922@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/fp5xe2R5grI2Mdh2kOMi1qlY1yQ>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 09 Aug 2018 16:15:48 -0000

> No attempt is made in the document to explain how/why the reduction in size of
> some standard LISP header fields is acceptable. For example, if implementations
> of this spec can safely operate with a 16 bit Nonce or 8 bit Map-Versions, why
> does 6830/6830bis feel the need for 24 and 12 bit fields rspectively?

Note, you misread RFC6830. The Map-Version field is 24-bits when the V bit is set. And is divided up like this:

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |N|L|E|V|I|flags|  Source Map-Version   |   Dest Map-Version    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Dino

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email