Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt

Dino Farinacci <> Fri, 12 January 2018 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7610412D856; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrMozDuDOWhY; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83D75129C6B; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 23so4923731pfp.3; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YnBYxk3QtsEykws4km8u4ABTx1A1qfkdvn5UyDGQPhs=; b=uL2aljjG7/hwF6nS1SSXz/RrgkhsXz/KAVt4UlCRQGTXaUr8JfrXWGcwgDoukAIdvX +8WkqswtPRYJXhwsDI1Sz3eNnfAYI4lLUt28PGZhQLGppGuZFKb2x3TQrb8I0HmLXhws irBrL4OFVhPa9wjxj0cTzyq884J42k5hf+jsMOIIE95HWTii97q7Ws7dWSYb4hndz8ey EMZ4S0SZdYGAKtEC6b5Vgb3lZCSSY1xvbDqNRctWbksED8pZ1JoHSLFn2NdMb0EXpmE5 eX8tJwo+Z565SGCwYHpboCvQYPyzls+mdVwtWOgSX3+nJ4QJdlhoIITz/Mm3OEnX3e/i uAtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YnBYxk3QtsEykws4km8u4ABTx1A1qfkdvn5UyDGQPhs=; b=C/mV1BQ4LZQG71q4eNKAW6apAJyk5VWgsOqibYLxShTLGQTAjPhVyxZkrjsVquXxtm NaEoDFWUZ3LZTCG3uoOqV8JGldAfaVbZvrGINrI/53gZUIbci1+GTm2FCsTHh4L8NT99 Qecu4JGg25KCj4UHRw6jylFfuPCJ1MsRHZG24Dx4dzP0zLAjF8hB5ot4iD6KufivXT0B AZEh8Iq+xlZhJfcBD0L0zejLm9umsZmErgYz5/CjZ6Mks+qW5YXdgbohDyqudGpEKPyB eld2sONAy63ecWemrgEuj3NTOI1GF/bgoN4HDBTpzQ3qdtaz4MlGhxarm7c0hwOsW99t mEzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIReI4qCUYwXi2fTNvigg11iI4xTnaC9kXoHtWtCBKhS7vi/q2v mkdQN8kNbo1gi1K/kShfMEA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos5xSxTdS8hN44k4kK2HUJ0am3qkRBD/ZHwsSm2z7LoN2PkoINpzH/Xass6vL8qfsA/o+nsTQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id m26mr21028997pge.157.1515779932012; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:a9e9:12fe:1dc9:ceb6? ([2603:3024:151c:55f0:a9e9:12fe:1dc9:ceb6]) by with ESMTPSA id x4sm45728463pfb.13.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:50 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:50 -0800
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Les Ginsberg <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:58:57 -0000

> The first use of LCAF (Section 2) should be expanded.
> I find the acronym "RTR" a bit unfortunate for the obvious reason that it intuitively represents "just a router". I wonder if the authors could

Les, I understand your concern here. However, RTR is littered throughout many LISP documents as well as in product documentation and implementations. We have clearly defined it in the base documents and for any new use-case of an RTR, it is explained in the use-case documents.

I really think it is too late. The term will continue to be used even if IETF changes the documents. And adding a new term could add confusion (you’d have to clarify everywhere that an RTR and a ReTR is the same thing).

> consider something like "ReTR". I am sensitive to the fact that this document has been around since 2014 and has undergone significant WG review. I have

RTR was introduced in a general way in RFC6830 which dates even further back in time. And the component has added NAT functionality, TE functionality, and in this document multicast functionality.

> not attempted to track all of the email history regarding this document. Perhaps this point has been considered and consensus has been that the
> RTR acronym is the best choice. If so, feel free to disregard my suggestion, but as someone who read this document for the first time I found myself 
> looking back for the definition of "RTR" multiple times as I read through the text.

Do you believe the definition is sufficient? This is what’s in the current document:

  Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that
   implements the re-encapsulating tunnel function detailed in Section 8
   of the main LISP specification [RFC6830].  A LISP RTR performs packet
   re-routing by chaining ETR and ITR functions, whereby it first
   removes the LISP header of an ingress packet and then prepends a new
   LISP header to an egress packet.