Re: [lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Thu, 14 December 2017 17:01 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 E3C02129431 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:29 -0800 (PST)
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 08rhghph_CSf for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 3BF43126C0F for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k134so3794035pga.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:28 -0800 (PST)
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=N4AXmTbxfHnVhzPmGqzmGJy2QbN1g5F/e0XRL7wFU1Y=; b=C4RWicKBSE679rUcrD9FlAY0Gb2WoLr9L/lYTMnZOp3JA0RTeyDZvHOPxIEsfJlPJP uGYdRpvfKJPIOmzr4Uyl4gBf4xJmpVKjmFx2drqntrqcxc0SYsNpKJK6dpvL1noGFld7 pMoeDhaQYNQ/BF3PSAsiiZ+6MQwMETWL5UrDGdFVYgUJ428WVNvcdjKVH58CQVT//QOd CSZACSo8XapEpd2DIq/gUtuVxldUzwmHp49LbozO5IkeZdUXKT87y5VRmv3kTvS27JOx dNNESt1NQjuYX77l7wxWN0qpFBMU2v6ltEOUZI8Gs8djwCjGzcW9ZQdnS1d8irwa9cmk gRgg==
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=N4AXmTbxfHnVhzPmGqzmGJy2QbN1g5F/e0XRL7wFU1Y=; b=LzLZze5Ji2IolG+aB3hALLomydi0veaE3wdfDOORs5Y20CslX3MVlwVaB/G/v8MQeJ 1jWi9SwA51iF5b8ZR9vW603RkK2hIYgQy9ukT3KCe7XUUxc03PCzKylbBaaph6DnolOu O05Kx7zRNg/uSi48UXHXhA0StFN4C41u7yggKAfAAqMwl+nYrY6Pu46uaQg5Ea9LmO8P +vyLExcvA6V86H5n1qVWFLZ0XuFOCgyvELDvlGvNvHE5PBpQN74ue0dPdnB8nTTvyWVk bUz95qSJvmiovuxCkzlnxG+cYUhM79Kfx0cRjslE+A/DKP+nKOJIcGgo4bOoWcyVipbs oAPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLL3rODMvwSFZtATMc6ebRhSgQ4/65B3u4ikqoKksISPsQkkZbF +YRXv21pZc+AxZQxEAZfDbs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos8IVPpQWBdfXNXJeF6C5YtdDzL+HWpLm/vBuXalph29qNWK9h5DKrhUH4zOL0ih5sWbVmI0w==
X-Received: by 10.159.218.143 with SMTP id w15mr10534638plp.38.1513270887630; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:27 -0800 (PST)
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 y3sm9036334pff.122.2017.12.14.09.01.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E7372A3-8FB8-47A3-B8EC-72F998824EF2@gigix.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:01:24 -0800
Cc: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ED7ECEA2-4A11-422B-B4A7-76C2E3455761@gmail.com>
References: <211ad1ba-b5fb-b0d5-7001-0f91e89691b7@cisco.com> <0E7372A3-8FB8-47A3-B8EC-72F998824EF2@gigix.net>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/hRqvXYcKaIzgObba6aPWAmWQ8fs>
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, 14 Dec 2017 17:01:30 -0000

I would prefer to not merge the two documents. Should we say in RFC6830bis that the R-bit is already allocated but don’t way why and make no reference. If no, I go for option A.

Dino

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 2:58 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> His All,
> 
> happy to see so much consensus :-)
> 
> <chair hat on>
> 
> As a chair I have to point out that if you add text in 6830bis to allocate the last bit and refer to draft-lewis-lisp-gpe you are creating an authoritative dependency on a to a document that as for now is not even WG item.
> This will block the publication of 6830bis as RFC (remember the intro document…….).
> 
> There are two possible solutions:
> 
> A. 6830bis remains unchanged, leaving the P-bit marked as reserved for future use. draft-lewis-lisp-gpe will than allocate this last bit and detail the operations. 
> 
> B. We merge the two documents.
> 
> I do not have a preference, up to the WG to decide, but better to avoid document dependencies that will block publication.
> 
> <chair hat off>
> 
> Ciao
> 
> L.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29 Nov 2017, at 23:32, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would like to suggest a way to address mutiprotocol support in RFC6830bis, that may address what was discussed in Singapore. 
>> This is based on using the last reserved bit in the LISP header as P bit to indicate support for multiprotocol encapsulation, as specified in the LISP-GPE draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe) 
>> The header, as specified in section 5.1, would look like: 
>> 
>>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>    L   |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version/Next-Protocol    |
>>    I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>    S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>>    P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> 
>> 
>> and the text in section 5.3 that reserves the 6th bit would be replaced by: 
>> 
>>    P: The P-bit is the Next Protocol bit. When this bit is set to
>>       1, the V-bit MUST be set to 0 and the Nonce length, when used, is 
>>       limited to 16 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:
>> 
>>      x x x 0 x 1 x x
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|           Nonce               | Next-Protocol |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> 
>> 
>> I will have to refresh the LISP-GPE draft, and reflect the allocations of the KK bits according to RFC8061 and Nonce. One of the K bits was used by LISP-GPE to indicate OAM packets, but that same functionality can be done using the Next-Protocol field. 
>> 
>> 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. 
>> 
>> This would address the multiprotocol working item included in the current charter. 
>> 
>> I can very quickly update the LISP-GPE draft to reflect this, but I wanted to hear what the group thinks first. 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Fabio
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp