Re: [lisp] 6833bis - NMR with locator count !=0

["Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Joel,

That would be ideal, could you please shed some light on what you see as “suitable indications” in a map-reply?

The two things that are compelling about the NMR are:

1. Dynamic calculation of covering prefix for the non-EID requested
2. short TTL of the mapping so that we continue requesting more specifics (the ITR implementations usually know to assign a short TTL when the map-reply is an NMR [loc-count == 0])

If I can continue to achieve those without manually configuring the PETR RLOCs at the ITRs, we have what we need. But I didn’t see a way to do this in the framework of the current spec.

-v

> On Aug 22, 2017, at 7:40 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Now speaking only as an individual:
> 
> If you want the Proxy ETR to be in the mapping system, wouldn't it make more sense to have it register the address block for which it is serving as a proxy?  With suitable indications so that ITRs which learn of it get back the bits that tell them to continue askign about more specifics?  That would seem to result in existing ITRs working with these newer PETRs without any changes.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 8/22/17 2:32 AM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) wrote:
>> Would be mainly conveying the RLOCs of the feasible PETRs dynamically.
>> As PETRs are brought on-line in the network, they can be configured/added in the Mapping System, rather than touching a multitude of ITRs.
>> This would also allow a more elegant definition for the support of a default exit to the Internet in the Extranet case defined in the lisp-vpn draft. In this scenario, the RLOC record would convey the RLOC of the PETR plus the IID to which the Internet connects at the PETR.
>> -v
>>> On Aug 21, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can you explain what information you are conveying with the RLOCs?  I think we would need a clear use case before changing the spec.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>> 
>>> On 8/22/17 2:07 AM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) wrote:
>>>> Dear WG,
>>>> As we put some of our specifications to the test in deployments, we have found the ability to return RLOCs dynamically in an NMR to be compelling in a variety of deployment scenarios. Particularly in Networks with multiple Internet exit points.
>>>> What are the thoughts of the group on allowing NMRs with a locator count !=0?
>>>> One option to indicate that a map-reply is an NMR could be to assign one of the reserved bits as an NMR flag.
>>>> Would like to gauge the inclination of the WG before proposing text/edits.
>>>> -v
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp