For what's it worth (and for the record), I would not tradeoff the nonce for a protocol-ID. The data-plane features in LISP are far more important IMO then a protocol demux field we may never need to use.
Dino On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:07 AM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: > {This is mostly to the LISP WG; NVO3 - which I candidly admit to knowing > almost nothing about, but which I justt joined - may or may not care. Sorry > this goes on for a bit, but this is important. I hope people will take the > time to read it - it's not _that_ long.} > > >> From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci at gmail.com> > >> the P-bit is being proposed for LISP. > > For those who missed what this was all about (I sure did), there is a new ID: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-00 > "LISP Generic Protocol Extension" > > As a personal ID, this ID was not automagically announced to the LISP WG; I > only happened to just see it when I was updating the LISP bibliography this > weekend. > > May I suggest that in the future, anyone posting a personal draft _send a > message to the WG_ - for people who are not subscibed to the full ID > announcement feed (I'm not, it's way too much traffic, 97% of which I don't > care about); otherwise, many people will have no idea that it's there. > > Even better, run the basic idea through the WG _before_ you write the draft; > it may have a major flaw (as this one, I believe, does), or it may be a > direction we just don't want to go (in which case there's no use putting in > the effort to write an ID). > > > To briefly let people know what this is about, it allows carriage of non-IP > packets in LISP. This, I think, is basically a very good idea. > > However, the particular proposal in this ID is, IMO, very badly flawed. It > proposes to take over the field used to carry i) the nonce (for neighbour xTR > reachability detection), and ii) the version of the mapping entry, and use > that field to carry the Ethertype. > > Obviously, then, since one _cannot_ carry a non-IP packet without making it > _impossible_ to perform either of these functions: if only non-IP traffic is > being carried over a particular link, these two (important, IMO) control > functions will be _permanently_ disabled. > > I don't believe this is acceptable. > > >>> From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong at huawei.com> > >>> Regarding to the protocol evolution, does this mean that >>> nonce/map-version features in LISP will be deprecated? >>> IMO: Having the same field overloaded for many differen[t] purposes >>> is not good way for the protocol evolution, it becomes messy. > > Yes and no. The engineering analysis on this sort of thing is subtle. > > With a limited length header, if you have several control functions that do > not need to be applied _on every packet_, I think it's reasonable to share a > field between them. One does have to carefully look at the functions to > decide if they really are things that one doesn't have to do on every packet. > > The thing is that putting a separate field in for every possible function > will make the header a lot longer, which will have an impact on overhead > (somewhat problematic), and also MTU (even more problematic, especially if > MTU Discovery is not working properly). > > I am given to understand that a number of organizations have hardware which > looks at the first two 32-bit words, so unfortunately making the header longer > is not available as a _short-term_ answer. > > (Although I think we're just about reaching the limits of what we can cram > into a 2-word header, so it's probably time to start thinking about a longer > one.) > > >> It means that the features need to be traded off. So the >> market/user-base will decide what it wants to use that field for. > > I have to tell you that I just about fell off my chair when I realized > what you were saying here. > > I don't believe that is professionally acceptable to force users to chose > between i) carrying non-IP traffic, and ii) having some important control > functions available. > > I understand that in the real world there are constraints, so we can't > necessarily 'clean sheet of paper' the answer; but at the same time, surely it > is not beyond our wit to find an answer that doesn't force users into making > that choice. > > > I have some ideas on what to do here (technically), but before I launch into > them I would like to hear if the WG agrees with me that this 'tradeoff' is > unacceptable. > > Because, clearly, if the WG is happy with this, there's no point in my > bringing up alternatives. > > Noel > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp