IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review - control relationship

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 28 December 2017 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 37CE8124239 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:44:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 PaW3_ZfoS76K for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDBD71241FC for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A1BDA0210; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:44:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1514436290; bh=BktGsbc7aQO6R+B+6lv0wizGb1XIOOz1JzkvQ70lsQw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JpKpPRMPaoQ3menu/+yBj3uGja2SMne+jjmCmuAv2IZw0OSWm+QMpcMSHpa7S5pZ/ +gP4ZvNdJn2PX9khIvV7q9bOxZsgM2GuudyjB7/Vcdipe22aPhOaeVT0vWgxHPx6pb DKOM72dUuco4WytVkkeQu8++TOPJSyKXVAovdI80=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EE3D245B65; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:44:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <CAGE_QexqW=q51kXR9fo_8YDu6VVUHCBz-XrGt5iZ6FOTRxDLiA@mail.gmail.com> <6FEB1404-FA34-432A-8441-3F6B394A8217@gmail.com> <CAGE_QezkoJ_Y+Yxq+JBP3QACfzrkB_Xk2NjAw6A+aqEQGjZf6g@mail.gmail.com> <E4A712E6-4760-4804-B581-1E4813649FB8@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <18a49bad-e493-5d15-db07-276a9a654808@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:44:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E4A712E6-4760-4804-B581-1E4813649FB8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/qjCE1d5EL457O5B0ZlrL6COFZck>
Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review - control relationship
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, 28 Dec 2017 04:44:52 -0000

Trimmed...
I agree with Dino here.  There has never been a requirement that the 
LISP data plane work with anything other than the LISP control plane.

Strictly speaking, it is not even a requirement that the LISP control 
plane be capable of supporting anything other than the LISP data plane. 
However, we have found that to be useful, and so are going a short way 
down that path (there are still assumptions abou tthe data plane 
behavior that are needed for control plane robustness, which is fine.)

Yours,
Joel

On 12/27/17 11:18 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
...
>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing’
>>>
>>> I disagree with you guys. Who do you think punts packets when there is a map-cache miss? The data-plane. Note there are many users of the control-plane, an SDN controller, many data-planes, and lig/rig. How they each use the control-plane is documented in their own documents.
>>>
>>> And please do not suggest that lig/rig usage of the control plane move to 6833bis.
>>>
>> As an example, if we keep the 'Routing Locator Hashing' text as it is then it only works with Map-Reply messages:
>>
>> "When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message that is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR”
>>
>>   The point is to allow LISP data-plane to work with any control-plane.
> 
> No that has never been a requirement. We have stated (in the charter) that we can use any data-plane “with the LISP control-plane”. We have never discussed and it was never a requirement to do the converse.
> 
> Dino
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email