Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis

Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <> Tue, 16 January 2018 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87AD012EB31 for <>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 Pmdf0rwCK8MA for <>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB15012E3AE for <>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x42so6602068ita.4 for <>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OefOSJllpQkr3G+rurxjHo9g1PXmA8fMxSQtEQdwhzw=; b=ursrI54iZ7QzUI43RN8IXCt7VQ677LzMiuJfeCYfOSXPlrKcsp0vhAdF1yc2BzcSaU UMYeBLQMGzkrXA0IjhpSRfiYOlNeW9bpMiV2b3e0VtQ/Z+Bz+SjtHThm77OjFJvYeXUH 9uiYnDzDAQMXS+jZJpYeel3WiczbzbjlyNm1wffkj/sMyzxVW2WpgbfvNVcPqVSBu2BW 8qttsCJa421FRlzsYSgc7kRccH1QOe3+DLA/7PlfFIqAHS5P7lIkd3NdSP1nn+JbyGS6 8hW2F+HMmuc8nm4rI29YtjyviR6gnVdz+2fZmQbdWawRYd+SyiNCOrni2IL4h3j6WfNY eyeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OefOSJllpQkr3G+rurxjHo9g1PXmA8fMxSQtEQdwhzw=; b=rg0rw3URlJQhB38icnre/PoWx57PaokJjNzzwawq+B0kc9p1HH5vec2/56x31i74Fg jS99rWGQYJVoWxwA9iRhlnszZ2Orjqjob0xSIhIrJOBC9gidk5cTl7As/MebFs4x/wRR 4P+2sLfKvBxIXTVKLWmbvgzLLH0VaFioml+sxnArnBBsWEd9x01MTznwrmIK4UZx1Em3 czCQo4FMcGepCwximiwiKS7somDpWeGTyoJyht8TitoatDQxyTJUrg6vKUm8Jn8qRFqr 76kUBV4M9R+i1cWjTc85VsRumPaEZ614QISYrLRy6QJT1zQkPitPs4qrTdOR/Kh92Qz8 bF9A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytejd0X0eKrvpucR/t2VchfoiJ1gdKT++xwys8t8UO3iTqlLuP8f 9pi35wQ1mEGlAuWF8mhYGcBCac6JG1mBAeiaGSU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovSD3KzdWLg76ThhJYh6CUThhSq6w6rtW/JEgdSZkCao/xJJKMgOtGqnC6G7+Kr3KvOyVF1WcQQVDJY7x4RX18=
X-Received: by with SMTP id t7mr19691374ith.139.1516137937931; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:25:17 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Albert Cabellos <>
Cc: " list" <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:25:40 -0000

Thanks for the summary Albert. I can confirm a few points but I prefer
to abstain on those I don't have a strong opinion. Answers and
comments inline.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Albert Cabellos
<> wrote:

> A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI


I'm fine with LISP not being so focused on the original Internet use-case.

> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ and
> ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively.


I'd prefer to avoid using "identifier" in anything regarding the
underlay but I could be fine with the proposed text.

> C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation
> concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be
> validated by experts):


The new text looks good to me.

> D.- Simplify section ‘Router Locator Selection’ stating that the data-plane
> MUST follow what´s stored in the map-cache (priorities and weights), the
> remaining text should go to an OAM document.


I see the value of an independent OAM document but I don't see it as a
requirement to advance 6830bis.

> E.- Rewrite Section “Routing Locator Reachability” considering the following
> changes:
> *    Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and
> Echo-Nonce
> *    Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints
> from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response)
> and RLOC probing


I'd personally prefer to move those mechanisms that rely on
control-plane messages (i.e. 5 - receive a MapReply) to the
control-plane document but I'd not oppose to keep them on the
data-plane doc.

> F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis


This is one of the major results I hope to see out of this discussion.

> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement
> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document


Same comment as above regarding a separate OAM document.