Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 03 November 2017 17:38 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 98E6813FF04 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 weXSB0Bp99ow for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (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 CC8D513FF0E for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id v78so3058669pgb.5 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:38:18 -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=9PJzaK4pmV0IXYmlEfR7X3NK/t8tcHtAQAKaYYXsvGQ=; b=oPdIzv3Kg0hfnnVXUO0PtEPyT0/dEDDXjFFP2jYbNi7M+G/J8ehlLD+ZEVjD+twKOL gbbL3TLOYgxISpJX2Y7/a7i3VpXms3RINVlccsJKaWcVVvwC7/gaLjkrKcO28O9/MZQS IgMnjJ+bIlCiJ8d0QSLvkvo4SVfAAtykp/o0Ei2dtPZerk3JOV7/s2s+Jcf+WjvjzTin k+JATkAPxGGmDunP1e3rYpuiGt4CHPonlRBfKyZumNQZSwaDv3OvwVhyY+BmoPWTNQqp 6uyN/BZb3JEM9uQ8ilOHD/ffhaa06JbhF9Rl7uNPxJIEnZ5Y+23EgaOUnwQd+Hm/g5jX PcxA==
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=9PJzaK4pmV0IXYmlEfR7X3NK/t8tcHtAQAKaYYXsvGQ=; b=IPPZPmP9TMOtpGg/xr8WthRAjQ09uX/KC5ETtL+QhESc3VNp385lkjqndqKQPGTDIY CmphY0gOyHBJQdrIZxxjQNj4xDtk4XEHsAW7JBe+5V1bTa3FFkUewqMyxls3LI+jtaP3 Z2Rp4enkMe7F4Kjn7iupR21R4UCfyQFHGXt7wRRemYhSGcEJRG0/3KiUVTiI7N1+Haw9 uDYkwG47JpdAHb6nAAonknrRAMAbVVziI08nCZnL83DQsUpdV+GvC7g9ffb4mj2Cx64d 47NPtTobWuvXQT05X+GTW3Vc1BwtKDG1lmFXmNsRmN0LI/RVtjGD5ldyQ1bjJQ37gWIs c6BA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXwo5aTI4LvfKMCzhvJhmof5JZIOjOfEipYLwt655OdkDD6aLXp 4mtaDGSMR2r8ou+XK8tHy4ZXblAU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Qh81kuz6WL8fVR0nq7oq/Xuh2qQGetcanAweLuJoaGQrcJzg59KAKKLvi/q0FJzprXohdkGw==
X-Received: by 10.98.202.74 with SMTP id n71mr8475988pfg.202.1509730698440; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p17sm10481055pgc.66.2017.11.03.10.38.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f574957a-e4fd-6984-99ef-185cd2c1bc15@ac.upc.edu>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:38:17 -0700
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B5138540-69F2-482B-AAC5-544BB2BD69D8@gmail.com>
References: <f574957a-e4fd-6984-99ef-185cd2c1bc15@ac.upc.edu>
To: Albert Lopez <alopez@ac.upc.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/gL-xuu2s8FQrVenaQtxFTvP2Hl0>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal question
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: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 17:38:20 -0000

The TTL in the Map-Register is the TTL returned in Map-Replies. So it is the expiry time for a map-cache entry. Note it is the “Record TTL” in the EID-record which both appear in Map-Register and Map-Reply messages.

Dino

> On Nov 3, 2017, at 1:35 AM, Albert López <alopez@ac.upc.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In section 5.3 of the draft  draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal which describe the RTR processing, it says that when the RTR receive and ECM-ed Map Notify, once it is validated, it changes the state of the associated map-cache entry to verified for the duration of the Map Register TTL.  What does it mean by Map Register TTL?  it means the TTL of the record of the Map Register or it is the same concept of the Map Register TTL of the Map Server which is 3 minutes? If I understand correctly, if we don't receive more Encap Map Register / Map Notify to renew this verified period, the map-cache entry of the RTR expires, at least the locator of the map-cache entry associated with the Encap Map register.
> 
>   "Once the authenticity of the message is verified,
>   RTR can confirm that the Map-Register message for the ETR with the
>   matching xTR-ID was accepted by the Map-Server.  At this point the
>   RTR can change the state of the associated map-cache entry to
>   verified for the duration of the Map-Register TTL"
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Albert López
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp