Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Sun, 22 July 2007 04:12 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICSne-0007HJ-Sc; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:12:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICSnd-0007H5-Mc for ram@iab.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:12:05 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICSnd-0008E6-7a for ram@iab.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:12:05 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2007 21:12:04 -0700
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAId0okarR7MV/2dsb2JhbAA
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,567,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="505722755:sNHT27966336"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6M4C4Hk013752; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:12:04 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6M4C14w020604; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:12:01 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:12:01 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([10.21.89.104]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:12:00 -0700
In-Reply-To: <46A2BBBB.9000706@firstpr.com.au>
References: <469C962B.1090600@firstpr.com.au> <12D6E107-9D58-487A-BC5C-6BAC9495EC96@cisco.com> <46A084FE.9000003@firstpr.com.au> <46A1F2C4.9040605@firstpr.com.au> <717ED303-3EE5-4A84-9E9D-90F0F36B2377@cisco.com> <46A2BBBB.9000706@firstpr.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <A62B56CD-F962-482A-8320-86EC1241CBB0@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:11:54 -0700
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2007 04:12:00.0695 (UTC) FILETIME=[73C47470:01C7CC16]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2034; t=1185077524; x=1185941524; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20LISP=20NERD/CONS, =20eFIT-APT=20&=20Ivip=20com pared |Sender:=20; bh=ZCWFZb3CPCHSuoiw34NdGlsF4WLPC0g9arGBeT1VMgw=; b=KCAnxC0QDMMllY4I3O2LvVHG2mpVQVAIWpTqct1nZ/9FymhC3nO3UxA2qj2nlrlhnx5gct4u XxWpfSYW13oBFFNItGId6GxKnVoAeWJwjlOFzvdDv6poLyrYs97UNxVwSo9wWEyXUmajf5w1Gt cgeFCuNufHYjOhsjRvXgCIncQ=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

> If I was confused about some aspects of LISP-CONS then I figure
> other people may have been confused too.
>
> When I wrote my comparison, it was my impression that in
> LISP-CONS, as in LISP-NERD LISP 1 and LISP 1.5 (though the I-D
> says very little about 1.5) that the mapping data contains
> potentially multiple RLOC addresses, each with a Weight and
> Priority.  This is for the purpose of the ITR making its own
> decisions about which of the ETRs (one ETR is hopefully at each
> RLOC location) is currently reachable, including by receiving ICMP
> messages in response to encapsulated data packets which didn't
> make it to an ETR and probably also from messages sent by ETRs
> back to the ITR.
>
> So as part of my comparison I wrote (RW1):
>
>>> LISP-NERD/CONS:  As noted above, ITRs have complex functions,
>>> including making decisions on a packet-by-packet basis for MH
>>> service restoration, TE and I think load balancing functions.
>>> The ITR may or may not communicate with the ETR, but I think
>>> the ITR is always ready to accept ICMP messages as sign it is
>>> tunneling the data packets to the wrong address.
>
> to which you replied (DF1):
>
>> I beg to differ. The ITR simply does a cache lookup on the DA
>> when the DA has a routing table miss or a default route match.
>> When the cache lookup returns an RLOC it slaps a header on. It's
>> as simple as that.

I was talking about forwarding time. Once reachability is determined  
to a set of locators at control-time, they are programmed in hardware  
so the ITR forwarding time decision is to just use a preprogrammed  
encapsulation.

> So I looked closely at the LISP-CONS I-D, in particular at this
> paragraph in 6.4:
>
>   Priority, Weight, Unused, Loc-AFI, Locator:  See [LISP-01] for
>   details.  Oh, so it's just like a Blackberry.

These are the names of fields in the packet format description of the  
Map-Reply. In the CONS draft it is saying to refer to the LISP draft  
for details.

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram