Re: [lisp] looking for clarifications on rfc 6830

Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 21 October 2015 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675911B3316 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 AC4RgnFqzs0w for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 955301B330C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851D9258599; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (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 2279524EED8; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: Richard Li <renwei.li@huawei.com>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
References: <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C3900A80A@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <56253E35.6070309@joelhalpern.com> <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C390122CA@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <56281473.8090008@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:40:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C390122CA@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/rDUu92FnGkVRsM7usviihEl8XwU>
Subject: Re: [lisp] looking for clarifications on rfc 6830
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 21 Oct 2015 22:40:54 -0000

Looking at the text, there are two different references.  The first part
talks about "a Map-Request with n EID that best matches any EID-prefix
MUST be returned."
This is correct.  The Map-Reply must include the EID-prefix which
best-matches the EID from the request.
The grammar is a bit awkward in trying to say that if any other prefixes
need to be returned along with that, they need to go in the same
Map-Reply message.  But the text is not incorrect.

And the later text makes it clear that the prefixes that must be
included are the more-specific prefixes within the best-match. The 
current structure is important in part because conceptually there may be 
other reasons why a set of prefixes need to be sent.

Still, I would ask that you help us keep track of the fact that thsi 
third paragraph of 5.3 could be worded better.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/21/15 6:16 PM, Richard Li wrote:
> Thanks for your answers.
>
> Speaking about the Best-Match Prefixes, the RFC asks for returning
> all best-matched prefixes. For the example in the RFC, The prefix
> 10.1.2.0/24, for example, is NOT a best-match prefix, but the RFC
> still wants to return it. This is exactly where the confusion comes
> from.
>
> After reading your explanation, it comes to my mind that it is better
> off to introduce a concept like "more specific" and "less-specific".
>
> 10.1.2.0/24 is "more specific" than 10.1.0.0/16, and 10.0.0.0/8 is
> "less-specific" than 10.1.0.0/16.
>
> Using "more specific", the RFC could be rephrased as something like
> this: It will return the best-match prefix and all prefixes that are
> more specific than the best-match prefix.
>
> For the example in the spec, a Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5 would
> cause a Map-Reply with a record count of 3 to be returned with
> mapping records for EID-Prefixes 10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and
> 10.1.2.0/24, since 10.1.0.0/16 is the best-match prefix and the other
> two are more specific than the best-match prefix.
>
> Does the above make sense?
>
> Richard
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern
> [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:02 PM
> To: Richard Li; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] looking
> for clarifications on rfc 6830
>
> Thank you for reading RFC 6830 carefully. My understanding of the
> answers to your questions is in line below. Yours, Joel
>
> On 10/19/15 2:43 PM, Richard Li wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I have read RFC 6830. I have a few points I could not figure them
>> out by myself. Appreciated if you could clarify them.
>>
...
>> 3.Best-Match Prefixes
>>
>> Page 35, Section 6.1.5:
>>
>> A Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5 would cause a Map-Reply with a
>> record count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for
>> EID-Prefixes 10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24.
>>
>> Take a look at the EID prefixes in binary:
>>
>> 00001010.00000000.00000000.00000000 (10.0.0.0/8)
>>
>> 00001010.00000001.00000000.00000000 (10.1.0.0/16)
>>
>> 00001010.00000001.00000001.00000000 (10.1.1.0/24)
>>
>> 00001010.00000001.00000010.00000000 (10.1.2.0/24)
>>
>> 00001010.00000001.00000101.00000101 (10.1.5.5/32)
>>
>> Performing the best match of 10.1.5.5/32 against the EID prefix
>> database, we will have only 10.1.0.0/16.
>
> I am not sure what your question is here.  The reason the extra
> entries (beyond 10.1.0.0/16 have to be returned is not that one of
> them matches the request.  Youa re correct, and the text agrees, that
> there is only one entry matching 10.1.5.5/32.  The reason the extra
> entries need to be returned is that in the absence of those entries,
> later packets which match those other entries will be misdirected. Is
> the text insufficiently clear about the reason for sending the
> additional entries? If so, can you suggest text improvement for us to
> use in the next revision?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>