Re: [lisp] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction

Dino Farinacci <> Wed, 14 January 2015 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCB91AC3BA for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:56 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ad8674JIFWUs for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70C2F1AC3BC for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id eu11so11926516pac.11 for <>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1ZNWHE9tkDqpBmaMlLuN2ihD7wcHpDBbIz27pV+ST5Q=; b=LA5ehA25A/lGCFADg7fKNrLTPhnFli340+76yZDh72YZ82Suk5HI0/nDepFd1tGI06 vM+E6+aGqSV4e6gAybEkJsyQS6OyWqpkHQZSL4FYXih8mw1ysQbsWyfE6pn9U+bMgxjm Z5L/DpqoOf+bV/iqXib/ZK+dA1tTOgADyGVZ8Ic4WEJEiR2EeTsQV63YlWYgZbIpt3md LcH1PUm+SWpBRSBWD7r/L72VxC7oFHThADdwvHOiE7L42/TLldXMe8221bz9T564UrC0 xuN/yyqVeG0a5OULvhQvkGeI98n2XO4YjICD5DrMVbB+mBOwNDlys+r+1B/UVg8dzlVh j3OQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id kg7mr7723199pab.92.1421259052733; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v8sm20307313pdp.94.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:10:51 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Brian Haberman <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:10:56 -0000

Here are some brief responses to your comments Brian. Thanks for doing the throuogh review.

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Brian Haberman <> wrote:
> All,
>     I have completed by AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction
> as a part of the IETF publication process.  I have some
> comments/questions that should be resolved prior to starting an IETF
> Last Call.  Please let me know if you have any questions on these...
> 1. Section 1
> * I am going to try and short-circuit the inevitable question that will
> arise about the reference [Chiappa].  Since it is a web page, the RFC
> Editor will be concerned by its long-term stability.  Is that the best
> reference for that text?  Anything similar that has been published in a
> conference/journal/RFC/etc.?

I will yield to the authors.

> * The text uses the terms underlay and overlay without any context (in
> the summary bullets).  This is easily fixed by augmenting the text in
> the 2nd paragraph to identify which networks form the underlay and the
> overlay.

Those terms aren't used very much in RFC 6830 because those terms seem to become fashionable with the advent of nv03. If the authors want to continue to use those terms, I have no problem with that, but would suggest that the Definition of Terms section say that the underlay is what is referred to in RFC 6830 as "the underlying core routing system". And that an "overlay" is the encapsulation relationship between ITRs, ETRs, PxTRs, and RTRs.

> 2. Section 3 (and a few times in 3.5) : s/inetrworking/internetworking/
> 3. Section 3.2
> * Is it correct to say that EIDs are only routable at the edge?  This
> seems to contradict the text in section 3.5 that says EIDs may be
> injected in the global routing system.

Well it depends on your reference point. If the overlay is the center of perspective, then the global routing system is a non-LISP site relative to the overlay. The whole point is that EIDs are routable where LISP is not available. And that is true inside of a LISP site where packets are at a point in the data-path pre-encapsulation or post-decapsulation.

> * I find the PI and PA analogies misleading.  EIDs are global, but they
> may change their point of attachment.  If that occurs, you are not
> guaranteed that your EID space does not change.

It is desirable that your EIDs do not change. But the scope of EID mobility may be limited and if a legacy site wants to continue to use DHCP and address addresses out of, say an enterprise address pool, it should be able to do that while losing session survivability features. That is a decision for the organization that is supporting mobility into its own domain.

> * In the example, bullet four mistakenly says that the destination
> address of the outer header is set to RLOC_B2 (it should be RLOC_b1).
> 4. Section 3.3.1 introduces the term RTR (Reencapsulating Tunnel
> Routers) with no real description of how it functions or relates to ITRs
> and ETRs.

Well there are references to it in RFC 6830 and there are many use-cases for them which we are not allowed to reference since the drafts are not working group documents.

> 5. Section 3.4.3 makes reference to the LISP WG.  Given that this
> document will probably outlive the WG, I would suggest re-wording to
> remove a direct reference to the WG.
> 6. Section 3.4 has no discussion of EIDs and NATs.  Given the global
> nature of the mapping system, it would seem that NATs don't play well
> with LISP.  There should be some discussion of that.

LISP plays very well with NATs and we have many use-cases which are alive and being used. But again the draft on  NAT-traversal is not a working group document so it is hard to reference it. EIDs are translatable by NATs and so are RLOCs. It all depends where the xTR resides (on the public versus private side of the NAT).

> 7. Section 4.1
> * s/requires of a /requires a/
> * The discussion of SMR should contain a reference to 6830 or a brief
> discussion of how the SMR is used.
> 8. Section 5
> * I would suggest having a reference to both the MIP and the NEMO specs
> when discussing mobility.  LISP has the potential to operate in a manner
> conducive with NEMO if the xTR acts as the NEMO Mobile Router.

Well if we do that then there are a ton of other cases where a xTR can be co-located with other functions (i.e. a simple reference is say a wifi AP). So singlingly out MIP/NEMO seems to be favoring these technologies versus others. Why would we want to do that?

Plus, it raises questions more than simplifies the understanding of LISP. This is an intro document.

> * Should there be some discussion of the mapping system's TTL mechanism
> impact on mobility support?

The TTL is not used for mobility to work. It is the SMR and Map-Notify mechanisms between xTRs and the mapping system and xTRs, respectively.

> 9. Section 9 talks about propagating multicast state as (S-EID, G).
> Does that mean that multicast in LISP is really only allowed to be SSM?

We are encouraging SSM but an (RP-EID, G) can be used as well. RFC 6831 describes all PIM modes.

> 10. I am surprised that there are 2 Security Consideration sections (7 &
> 9).  I am even more surprised that one says "Nothing new here" and the
> other actually discusses potential issues with the LISP approach.
> Regards,
> Brian

Thanks again,

> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list