Re: [RAM] New LISP draft available ...

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 25 July 2007 15:42 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 1IDj0P-0008Dm-Bz; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:42:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDj0O-0008Al-2B for ram@iab.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:42:28 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDj0M-00025k-Lk for ram@iab.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:42:28 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id c2so442289ugf for <ram@iab.org>; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CPfp00eR7IS05hzneWp5OLle5/ILUtCc/FkrG8N8mUucRmPTcx7ViskqwwprfJZ6A2y65a7Hy7tti13xJL/dwpJfta70HpiGm0A/iZTB7MbuOolGMr1R/B/0RbbXXeUWxMvLQ5dfB80Kcw52GJgsbkU5cC7+hkvm0puTiFVSa0g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=rmK7JO4rqtRnFMgv3iW8fRQUpRVaTRMf0SHbzxI3N9pn0VPxpQegJENZPmgfoFgn/kkZYEoLDFVKf63d6kIcK4Yh4tHZTOha0XYjiC4YnStN/cG4lQyC8eviyAc5hnl1aGlJOVmRcQk9E9MdNTWf8p/ygRgQxv4PUxc8LTMWk6c=
Received: by 10.67.88.17 with SMTP id q17mr1478632ugl.1185378145014; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.129.83.253? ( [130.129.83.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d24sm1505031nfh.2007.07.25.08.42.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46A76F5E.8060701@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:42:22 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>
Subject: Re: [RAM] New LISP draft available ...
References: <1DFBAD55-CA28-4D44-9F96-218F5F281047@cisco.com> <46A3CEE9.5080008@gmail.com> <46A740ED.6050109@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <46A740ED.6050109@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: RAM Mailing List <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

Scott,

On 2007-07-25 14:24, Scott Brim wrote:
> I didn't see a reply from Dino so ...
> 
> On 07/22/2007 17:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
>> General points that aren't mentioned and perhaps should be:
>>
>> MTU size reduction
>> Fragmentation (in IPv4)
>> Referrals (host A passes an address for host B to host C)
> 
> This kind of thing is a reason for maintaining current "address"
> behavior.  What host A passes will be what host B believes its address
> is, and what the LISP system considers to be B's EID.

Sure, but it should be said.

> 
>>> 4.1.  Packet Flow Sequence
>> ...
>>>    1.  host1.abc.com wants to open a TCP connection to host2.xyz.com.
>>>        It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.com.  An A record is returned.
>>>        This address is used as the destination EID and the locally-
>>>        assigned address of host1.abc.com is used as the source EID.  An
>>>        IP packet is built using the EIDs in the IP header and sent to
>>>        the default router.
>> 'default router' seems wrong (it would typically be understood to
>> mean the default router on the host's LAN). Doesn't this mean
>> 'a site egress router' (which is ingress to the LISP domain)?
> 
> This is from the point of view of the originating endpoint, so it's
> not the site egress router.  Whatever it uses to get its packets
> forwarded to the destination -- probably a "default" router, but
> technically "next hop router" is probably better.

Yes, but the next line says:
     2.  The default router is configured as an ITR.
Are you saying that all next hop routers are ITRs? I would
have thought that only site egresses would be ITRs.

> 
>> In 6.1.1 and elswhere you give RFC2434 as a reference for
>> AFIs. There's nothing about AFIs in that RFC; in fact AFI documentation
>> is a bit of a mystery.
> 
> Got a better reference?  All I know is BGP docs.

OK, look at the first page of http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
There is now a registry (I think I looked once before and
couldn't find it).

     Brian

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