Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04
Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Wed, 15 August 2018 18:15 UTC
Return-Path: <fmaino@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 7D029130DC2; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 YrvX4awYHI_M; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD3FF12D949; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13470; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1534356919; x=1535566519; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oF29BqskOcVJ6IJ3di9gSm9SISGq5Y5KyCMUwK7bYew=; b=liPhiCKzAJIeJfxxPwStK4oVL5Ppe95uyr26SbOvPgjqEukJrBqfxVMQ GBaAGWj+guryaxtJmew07xO+ONEVR8XfeNHSeH7ozVYwkJYWd7l2E+wis J22ojavXj9srwPm3RyKKQU2dF/3cajRvc1ZBuwNyVFkyFgCW35vu7heBn o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DYAAAObXRb/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMgL2N/KINtiAqMM4FgLZYTgXoLI4EzAYMVAoM0ITQYAQIBAQIBAQJtHAyFNwEBAQMBIw8BBS8SBQsLFAQCAiYCAlcGAQwIAQGDHgGBeQgPqzqBLoRohXqBC4gJF4FBP4ESJ4JrgxALAoE6J4MBglUCjXKMeQmGJXWBfoY9BhWBOkiDZoJRhXOIK4JdiBmBQTiBUjMaCBsVgyUIghwXiFmFXh8xi1+CSQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,244,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="441754412"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Aug 2018 18:15:18 +0000
Received: from [10.24.94.185] ([10.24.94.185]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w7FIFHJh012095; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:15:17 GMT
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.all@ietf.org
References: <153383075580.28970.16196543565444262922@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1c15b23d-abe7-16c5-d7d8-88279b061441@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:15:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <153383075580.28970.16196543565444262922@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.24.94.185, [10.24.94.185]
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/i92pzwzNcBiyZ7c_5iDkyi_NSfI>
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: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:15:22 -0000
Hi Adrian, thanks for such a detailed review. I went through your comments and I can incorporate all of them into a new version of the draft. Wrt the reduction in size of the Map-Versioning and Nonce fields, I could add in Section 3, right after the definition of the encoding of those fields, the following: > The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the one > used in RFC6830bis for the LISP data plane encapsulation, reduces the > length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits. As per RFC6830bis, ITRs are > required to generate different nonces when sending to different RLOCs, > but the same nonce can be used for a period of time when encapsulating > to the same ETR. The use of 16 bits nonces still allows an ITR to > determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at the same time. > > Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields, > compared with RFC6830bis, is reduced from 12 to 8 bits. This still > allows to associate 256 different versions to each EID-to-RLOC mapping > to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the > mapping. > Either Deborah, Joel, or Luigi: if you could please confirm that it is ok to publish a new version of the draft at this point, I'll update it right away. Thanks, Fabio On 8/9/18 9:05 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Reviewer: Adrian Farrel > Review result: Has Issues > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would > be helpful if you could consider them as normal review comments. I believe that > this review comes between WG publication and the start of IETF last call - you > may wish to discuss with your AD whether to treat these comments separately or > as part of IETF last call. > > Document: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04.txt > Reviewer: Adrian Farrel > Review Date: 9-August-2018 > IETF LC End Date: No known > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary > I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the Routing > ADs discuss these issues further with the authors. The issues are not > substantially technical in nature, but do indicate the need for significant > reworking of the text. I have tried to make suggestions for new text. > > Comments: > > This document specifies an alternate LISP header format that can be used to > allow LISP to carry payloads other than IP. A new capabilities flag is defined > so that routers know whether this new format is supported, and a new flag in > the header itself indicates when the new format is in use. > > The document is clear and readable, but has some issues of presentation that > could close a few potential misunderstandings and thus improve implmentation > prospects. > > 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? > > ===Major Issues=== > > Section 3 has a mix of minor and leess minor issues... > > OLD > This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in > order to support multi-protocol encapsulation: > > P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit > MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next > protocol field. > > P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined > in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit > because this flag bit is currently unallocated. > > Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to > carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the > protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. > > LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce, > an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning > [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]. These are all optional capabilities that > are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and the V > bit respectively. > > When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the > middle 16 bits. > > When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is > the middle 16 bits. > > When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, > the middle 16-bits are set to 0. > > This document defines the following Next Protocol values: > > 0x1 : IPv4 > > 0x2 : IPv6 > > 0x3 : Ethernet > > 0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > LISP-GPE Header > > NOTES > - It would be helpful to put the figure higher up > - The use of "MUST" for the P-bit is attenuated wrongly > - Need to be consistent on "P Bit" or "P-bit" or "P bit" > - There looks to be a problem in the case of map version. The base > spec has 12 bits each for source and dest map-version, so this doc > needs to describe how the reeduced 16 bits is split (presumably not > 12 and 4). > - You need a pointer to the IANA registry for next protocol > NEW > This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to > support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit > and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in > Figure 1 and described below. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 1 : The LISP-GPE Header > > P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. > > If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to the > definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. > > The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next > Protocol field. > > Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to > carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the > protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. > > In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the > first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to support map- > versioning. These are all optional capabilities that are > indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits > respectively. > > When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the > middle 16 bits (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits). Note that > the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set. > > When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version fields use > the middle 16 bits: the Source Map-Version uses the high-order 8 > bits, and the Dest Map-Version uses the low-order 8 bits. > > When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, > the middle 16-bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on > receipt. > > This document defines the following Next Protocol values: > > 0x1 : IPv4 > > 0x2 : IPv6 > > 0x3 : Ethernet > > 0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] > > The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section > 5. > > --- > > Section 4 must describe the error case when a LISP-GPE capable router > sets the P-bit on a packet to a non LISP-GPE capable router. So... > > OLD > When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P > bit MUST be set to 0. > NEW > When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P- > bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in > this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated > that it supports this specification because such a router would > ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so > would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing > significant errors. > END > > --- > > 4.1 > > Not your fault that RFC 8060 doesn't have a registry for bits in the > LCAF, but now you really need one or else future orthogonal specs risk > colliding with the g-bit. A bit odd to add this in this document, but > not worth a bis on 8060. > > ===Minor Issues === > > Section 2 > > OLD > The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags > (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an > instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility > to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is > the last reserved bit in the LISP header. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > LISP Header > NOTES > We need to be careful not to risk any confusion. At least, "some > reserved" is an over-statement. But also we should not show a repeat > of the Lisp header as that causes a duplicate definition. > NEW > The LISP header is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and contains > a series of flags of which one (bit 5) is shown in that document as > "reserved for future use". The setting of the flag fields defined > how the subsequent header fields are interpretted. > END > > --- > > 4.1 > I don't think you should reproduce the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type > figue from 8060 here as it creates a duplicate definition. The text > explanation of which bit is the g-bit shold be enough. > > ===Nits=== > > Abstract > OLD > This document describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol > (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support multi- > protocol encapsulation. > NEW > This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation > Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to > support multi-protocol encapsulation. > END > > --- > > 1. > OLD > LISP Data-Plane, as defined in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines > an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth > referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP > transport. > NEW > The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It > specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets > (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer > UDP/IP transport. > > --- > > 1.1 > Please use the new boilerplate... > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP > 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > --- > > 1.2 > Nothwithstanding the text in this section, abbreviations need to be > expanded either on first use or in this section. > I see: > - LCAF > - ETR > - ITR > - RLOC > - xTR > > --- > > 2. > s/As described in the introduction/As described in Section 1/ > s/LISP is limited to carry IP payloads/LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads/ > > --- > > 4.1 > s/field as g bit/field as the g-bit/ > > --- > > 8.1 > Please add RFC 8174 >
- [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Fabio Maino