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

Luigi Iannone <> Wed, 24 January 2018 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE4112D94E for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 pkhy-AJ-Gpul for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C34212420B for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f3so8552112wmc.1 for <>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7Ep8C2bJiv5/HsDBEBnqgIZ+aV6FrYgRJcsInbfA9Wg=; b=sZuxlmL6hJ2E31u4ytKguvCwN7y6d2Vs23NQ6PTSIGNaY1CKGbZ56Q1+jECjFFi20a jTxAlsD+/eO0wTKXBpjm8KxoCFGyr07+QgnQ1eAoJwajvY/vc3KWziGdn3WLXIg80GiC IdVn1EP36ckLHknxZBwvTjTyudJysRKeI2wvwdnMC5wdGmpMnYxYlhvcOeGQdcyevdsD C1mYXq47163XRaRat/z+u4wspOwtoA1GwUMaPG5T6hK6Zon6GfVvIvIfb4R81WFLlvt7 dDPnnUn7MdjUVTeb1xUtH7MGdv0GZ4bYRV+fgPJsvb5ml0VAN2LHH5tzyzx4FJfZjotB cSVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7Ep8C2bJiv5/HsDBEBnqgIZ+aV6FrYgRJcsInbfA9Wg=; b=QVvDyFKClUfH15cI8JqHnipdg10MoAaBaJGHYAi/CJYV1/BaYL0AqjwYlL/c8z3Y1a 6FGjD39iw2Jsw9AUSxwriNWHq+MyFlXxY8BFujDzf0XdjTsoAfzXuKeVKoS1ZNpxA/Yt EyJB15dV/S+ilPXRTbGRJc/LI3YuCNW67QjCnQXw66/nay8acjgcmvidAj9okcXHlQTo 5kf7tR9lt5t8Ra80z9iHj7aH5KebdtPSMesuQvEdUYYuqXp2yfP3A+N/8NVoT3prw3Ah +pT1d7RKMiG0Zy+rbGfZpj8Nk4uERzxkPiJav5xf4t4yDFtp7DDPKvHKrB5p3c1FrowE ZHmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdGA2gP5Htp1ZmtJImMRhb1mLmatlQEPWi5+ugHDa3GcW/6SpNZ d5bWM9VqEpSsAaysdl/t+VfiCjHlPzE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227pRNaldG4epCDDFI0/A1u91RuWGgMFmg24tT5BVf6x5nCP8Hc3J3xHZkv9W9y1q5Cw3JtIdQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h39mr24420200ede.124.1516799559391; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:8094:d68e:bf33:ec7c? ([2001:660:330f:a4:8094:d68e:bf33:ec7c]) by with ESMTPSA id b27sm289588edc.28.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Luigi Iannone <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:12:38 +0100
Cc: Albert Cabellos <>, " list" <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:12:43 -0000

> On 23 Jan 2018, at 16:11, Dino Farinacci <> wrote:
>>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ and ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively. 
>> For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as follows:
>> Routing Locator (RLOC):   An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
>>      [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  An RLOC is
>>      the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one
>>      or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address blocks 
>>     assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the underlay 
>>     network, as such they represent the identifiers of the underlay.
>>      Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to 
>>      multiple ETR devices at a site.
> Adding “identifier of the underlay” does not improve or simplify the definition. It makes it more confusing IMO. People will interpret LISP has IDs in the underlay. Note in dozens of conversations I've had with people on LISP who are new to the concepts refer to RLOCs as “routing IDs”. And then when I ask them to clarify if they mean “EIDs” or “RLOCs”, they say “oh EIDs”.
> The definition above will not help with this confusion.
> I would like to keep the definition as is with your edits from your lastest commentary review.
> Thanks,
> Dino

I don’t have a strong opinion on this point. You can keep the original text if you wish.