Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04
Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Thu, 16 August 2018 05:29 UTC
Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4BE131092; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVanIP8GZW9e; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E581513108C; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14962; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1534397348; x=1535606948; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3Z1kB2TmbzRSWp4zN0E4vLYWfkiLHLv0ZSEf46mEcQw=; b=INgl2QMW0iCSbj08mnEeb3Jq9WnLyiK2At4NzpP49DzOdT7kix+lZrRp FxVBAXmlDm7Uf8xOGj87KX32cYrUpvctQ2+vLCv05YTOIHM1+/H9BmG/I oTBkKhSK+UUJhdzz5DSHx01AS8CQguYxi9NyfkWljoIJIWdDmxElkoc5x k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CdAADOCnVb/4QNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMgL2N/KINuiAqMNIFgLZYTgXoLI4EzAYMVAoM0ITQYAQIBAQIBAQJtHAyFNwEBAQQjFS8SDAQLEQMBAQEBAgIjAwICRgkIBwwGAgEBgx4BggEPqhyBLoQqAT2FeIELiAkXgUE/gRIngmuDEAsBAQOBNyeDAYJVAo1CMIx5CYYldYF+hj0GFYE6SINmglGFc4grgl2IGYFBOIFSMxoIGxWDJAkWggYXhS2DLIVeHzABFwEBi2GCSQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,246,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="436743100"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Aug 2018 05:29:06 +0000
Received: from [10.24.94.185] ([10.24.94.185]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w7G5T4vS002116; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:29:05 GMT
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.all@ietf.org
References: <153383075580.28970.16196543565444262922@ietfa.amsl.com> <1c15b23d-abe7-16c5-d7d8-88279b061441@cisco.com> <015201d434c6$05902a10$10b07e30$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <28017ff3-05e1-a59a-1f66-106d070b6856@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:29:04 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <015201d434c6$05902a10$10b07e30$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.24.94.185, [10.24.94.185]
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/fp9tdAFg4FbKHyDBKBJgVpZ2X3k>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 05:29:17 -0000
Hi Adrian, here is the updated draft that should address all your comments: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05. Rfcdiff pointer: https://goo.gl/bMbRvC Please let me know if you have any other suggestion. Thanks again, Fabio On 8/15/18 11:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > That additional text is helpful, thanks. > > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fabio Maino [mailto:fmaino@cisco.com] >> Sent: 15 August 2018 19:15 >> To: Adrian Farrel; rtg-dir@ietf.org >> Cc: lisp@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-gpe.all@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04 >> >> Hi Adrian, >> thanks for such a detailed review. >> >> I went through your comments and I can incorporate all of them into a >> new version of the draft. >> >> Wrt the reduction in size of the Map-Versioning and Nonce fields, I >> could add in Section 3, right after the definition of the encoding of >> those fields, the following: >> >>> The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the one >>> used in RFC6830bis for the LISP data plane encapsulation, reduces the >>> length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits. As per RFC6830bis, ITRs are >>> required to generate different nonces when sending to different RLOCs, >>> but the same nonce can be used for a period of time when encapsulating >>> to the same ETR. The use of 16 bits nonces still allows an ITR to >>> determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at the same time. >>> >>> Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields, >>> compared with RFC6830bis, is reduced from 12 to 8 bits. This still >>> allows to associate 256 different versions to each EID-to-RLOC mapping >>> to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the >>> mapping. >>> >> >> Either Deborah, Joel, or Luigi: if you could please confirm that it is >> ok to publish a new version of the draft at this point, I'll update it >> right away. >> >> Thanks, >> Fabio >> >> >> >> >> On 8/9/18 9:05 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> Reviewer: Adrian Farrel >>> Review result: Has Issues >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The >>> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as >>> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special >>> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. >>> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see >>> ?http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >>> >>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would >>> be helpful if you could consider them as normal review comments. I believe >> that >>> this review comes between WG publication and the start of IETF last call - you >>> may wish to discuss with your AD whether to treat these comments separately >> or >>> as part of IETF last call. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04.txt >>> Reviewer: Adrian Farrel >>> Review Date: 9-August-2018 >>> IETF LC End Date: No known >>> Intended Status: Standards Track >>> >>> Summary >>> I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the >> Routing >>> ADs discuss these issues further with the authors. The issues are not >>> substantially technical in nature, but do indicate the need for significant >>> reworking of the text. I have tried to make suggestions for new text. >>> >>> Comments: >>> >>> This document specifies an alternate LISP header format that can be used to >>> allow LISP to carry payloads other than IP. A new capabilities flag is defined >>> so that routers know whether this new format is supported, and a new flag in >>> the header itself indicates when the new format is in use. >>> >>> The document is clear and readable, but has some issues of presentation that >>> could close a few potential misunderstandings and thus improve implmentation >>> prospects. >>> >>> No attempt is made in the document to explain how/why the reduction in size >> of >>> some standard LISP header fields is acceptable. For example, if >> implementations >>> of this spec can safely operate with a 16 bit Nonce or 8 bit Map-Versions, why >>> does 6830/6830bis feel the need for 24 and 12 bit fields rspectively? >>> >>> ===Major Issues=== >>> >>> Section 3 has a mix of minor and leess minor issues... >>> >>> OLD >>> This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in >>> order to support multi-protocol encapsulation: >>> >>> P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit >>> MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next >>> protocol field. >>> >>> P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined >>> in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit >>> because this flag bit is currently unallocated. >>> >>> Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to >>> carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the >>> protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. >>> >>> LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce, >>> an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning >>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]. These are all optional capabilities that >>> are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and the V >>> bit respectively. >>> >>> When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the >>> middle 16 bits. >>> >>> When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is >>> the middle 16 bits. >>> >>> When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, >>> the middle 16-bits are set to 0. >>> >>> This document defines the following Next Protocol values: >>> >>> 0x1 : IPv4 >>> >>> 0x2 : IPv6 >>> >>> 0x3 : Ethernet >>> >>> 0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] >>> >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> >>> LISP-GPE Header >>> >>> NOTES >>> - It would be helpful to put the figure higher up >>> - The use of "MUST" for the P-bit is attenuated wrongly >>> - Need to be consistent on "P Bit" or "P-bit" or "P bit" >>> - There looks to be a problem in the case of map version. The base >>> spec has 12 bits each for source and dest map-version, so this doc >>> needs to describe how the reeduced 16 bits is split (presumably not >>> 12 and 4). >>> - You need a pointer to the IANA registry for next protocol >>> NEW >>> This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to >>> support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit >>> and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in >>> Figure 1 and described below. >>> >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> >>> Figure 1 : The LISP-GPE Header >>> >>> P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. >>> >>> If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to the >>> definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. >>> >>> The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next >>> Protocol field. >>> >>> Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to >>> carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the >>> protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. >>> >>> In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the >>> first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to support map- >>> versioning. These are all optional capabilities that are >>> indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits >>> respectively. >>> >>> When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the >>> middle 16 bits (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits). Note that >>> the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set. >>> >>> When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version fields use >>> the middle 16 bits: the Source Map-Version uses the high-order 8 >>> bits, and the Dest Map-Version uses the low-order 8 bits. >>> >>> When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, >>> the middle 16-bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on >>> receipt. >>> >>> This document defines the following Next Protocol values: >>> >>> 0x1 : IPv4 >>> >>> 0x2 : IPv6 >>> >>> 0x3 : Ethernet >>> >>> 0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] >>> >>> The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section >>> 5. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Section 4 must describe the error case when a LISP-GPE capable router >>> sets the P-bit on a packet to a non LISP-GPE capable router. So... >>> >>> OLD >>> When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P >>> bit MUST be set to 0. >>> NEW >>> When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P- >>> bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in >>> this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated >>> that it supports this specification because such a router would >>> ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so >>> would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing >>> significant errors. >>> END >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 4.1 >>> >>> Not your fault that RFC 8060 doesn't have a registry for bits in the >>> LCAF, but now you really need one or else future orthogonal specs risk >>> colliding with the g-bit. A bit odd to add this in this document, but >>> not worth a bis on 8060. >>> >>> ===Minor Issues === >>> >>> Section 2 >>> >>> OLD >>> The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags >>> (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an >>> instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility >>> to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is >>> the last reserved bit in the LISP header. >>> >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> >>> LISP Header >>> NOTES >>> We need to be careful not to risk any confusion. At least, "some >>> reserved" is an over-statement. But also we should not show a repeat >>> of the Lisp header as that causes a duplicate definition. >>> NEW >>> The LISP header is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and contains >>> a series of flags of which one (bit 5) is shown in that document as >>> "reserved for future use". The setting of the flag fields defined >>> how the subsequent header fields are interpretted. >>> END >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 4.1 >>> I don't think you should reproduce the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type >>> figue from 8060 here as it creates a duplicate definition. The text >>> explanation of which bit is the g-bit shold be enough. >>> >>> ===Nits=== >>> >>> Abstract >>> OLD >>> This document describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol >>> (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support multi- >>> protocol encapsulation. >>> NEW >>> This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation >>> Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to >>> support multi-protocol encapsulation. >>> END >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 1. >>> OLD >>> LISP Data-Plane, as defined in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines >>> an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth >>> referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP >>> transport. >>> NEW >>> The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It >>> specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets >>> (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer >>> UDP/IP transport. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 1.1 >>> Please use the new boilerplate... >>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", >> "MAY", and >>> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP >>> 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all >>> capitals, as shown here. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 1.2 >>> Nothwithstanding the text in this section, abbreviations need to be >>> expanded either on first use or in this section. >>> I see: >>> - LCAF >>> - ETR >>> - ITR >>> - RLOC >>> - xTR >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 2. >>> s/As described in the introduction/As described in Section 1/ >>> s/LISP is limited to carry IP payloads/LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads/ >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 4.1 >>> s/field as g bit/field as the g-bit/ >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 8.1 >>> Please add RFC 8174 >>>
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-l… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of d… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of d… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [lisp] Rtgdir last call review of d… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ie… Fabio Maino
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ie… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ie… Fabio Maino