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

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Wed, 25 July 2007 05:36 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 1IDZY6-00030c-Gl; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:36:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDZY5-00030D-1E for ram@iab.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:36:37 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IDZY4-0004Cy-Jt for ram@iab.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:36:37 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2007 01:36:36 -0400
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAJd+pkZAZnmf/2dsb2JhbAA
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,578,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="126950328:sNHT27850936"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6P5aawL000948; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:36:36 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6P5aZEZ025954; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:36:35 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:36:35 -0400
Received: from [172.28.168.212] ([10.82.219.32]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:36:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707231019230.13685@chandra.student.uit.no>
References: <1DFBAD55-CA28-4D44-9F96-218F5F281047@cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707231019230.13685@chandra.student.uit.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <38F0B1BE-DD5C-4492-B316-2E2D6F82072A@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RAM] New LISP draft available ...
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:36:28 -0700
To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2007 05:36:35.0563 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3DD1BB0:01C7CE7D]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2049; t=1185341796; x=1186205796; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; 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]=20New=20LISP=20draft=20available=20... |Sender:=20 |To:=20Roger=20Jorgensen=20<rogerj@jorgensen.no>; bh=DxK2XsS0w4+VaZca0hupdmNgDC3v96v74cYibN4LDzk=; b=olDQPe6sf7Ec2dDyDdyKePPlgtiGj1R603N+xqxwI3cuzTkHyI1GGKj78VkkqRXfwNOQEvRB Mk2ZLp9WqWU32U7yn4W8V4W63FdqYoNBebGchI0khV9LO12IZ5FSyEXu;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: roger@jorgensen.no, 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

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> We have a new LISP-02 draft available. The packet formats are  
>> consistent with CONS-01 as well as the implementation we are testing.
>>
>> The draft has been submitted to the ID directory, but you can find  
>> a draft at:
>>
>> 	http://www.dinof.net/~dino/ietf/draft-farinacci-lisp-02.txt
>>
>> This version is formatted much better.  ;-)
>>
>> This draft also reflects comments from Ved Kafle and Olivier  
>> Bonaventure.
>
> a few more general question/clearification around the draft in  
> general just to see if I understood it correct. Also fun to read  
> those small comments on Steve Jobs and iPhone :)

Thanks!

> In section 3, you mentio about EID:
> " The source EID is obtained via existing
>       mechanisms used to set a hosts "local" IP address.  LISP uses PI
>       blocks for EIDs; such EIDs MUST NOT be used as LISP RLOCs.  Note
>       that EID blocks may be assigned in a hierarchical manner,"
>
> Why restrict it to PI addresses there? If, because no one know how  
> it is moving on, ULA-C/G are approved and getting into use, they  
> would be almost perfect for this usage.

We have discovered that a PI address may be used as a locator. We  
have heard plenty of feedback where a PI prefix may have to stay in  
the core routing tables. But we would like to keep that to the  
absolute minimum.

But you are right, we don't need a hard and fast rule about PI  
addresses.

> Next thing, EID-prefix, that would be the above mention IP block?

Yes.

> Also in Section 4.1 (page 9-10), the example was worded so it could  
> be read that it is Ipv4 only. I know thats not true but maybe  
> change the wording a bit? A change like this could be enough:
>
> "This section provides an example of a IPv4 unicast packet flow  
> with the following parameters:"

I realized we used the phrases "IP packet" and "A record" which imply  
IPv4 but you can see it means either. We can tighten this up in the  
next rev.

Dino

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