Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR

[Dino Farinacci]

> Could I not do the above even if the EID-prefix DID NOT EXIST? Or are we 
> restricting any application of policy only to LISP EID-prefixes, and not to 
> non-LISP prefixes? 

No, it would be either.

> The map-replies suggested in the new text would effectively be NMRs, correct? 
> i.e. Map-replies with empty locator sets and the ACT bits set.

The definition of a Negative Map-Reply is one with a empty RLOC-set. I will 
make that more clear in the definition and the description on how to return 
different actions.

> If that is the intent, maybe we need to revise the definitions for NMR and 
> ACT as I think right now there is some inconsistency/contradiction:
> 
> a) NMR definition - Issued in response to queries only for EIDs that DO NOT 
> EXIST
> b) ACT bits specification - for use in NMRs ONLY
> c) New text describing how the ACT bits are used to specify forwarding 
> behavior for EIDs that DO EXIST

Agree 100%. See new diff file.

> So NMRs are exclusive to non-existent or non-registered EIDs (a) and ACT bits 
> are exclusive to NMRs (b). Yet (c) implies that NMRs will be used for EIDs 
> that DO EXIST. So (c) contradicts (a).

No, not really. “Exist” is too general a term. We should say “not registered”. 

Let me know if new text is better.

Thanks,
Dino

<<< text/html;	x-unix-mode=0644;	name="rfcdiff.html": Unrecognized >>>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Dino Farinacci]

I think the problem is that RFC6830bis has too narrow a definition of 
“data-plane”. I believe you think it as the sole purpose of forwarding data 
packets. I view it as the “nodes that make up the data-plane” should be part of 
that.

Having said that, the Deployment section is saying where xTRs go and why. The 
Mobility section is saying where EIDs and RLOCs are and off often the can 
change. Both of these sections has nothing to do with control-plane and hence 
they shouldn’t go in RFC6833bis but should not go into a OAM document either.

The Traceroute section is probably the only section that should go in a 
document titled “OAM”. But what is the cost of putting just this section in a 
document?

The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the benefit.

Dino

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Luigi Iannone  wrote:
> 
> If the items are unrelated why should they go to 2 different document, 
> knowing that are not related to the data-plane neither ?
> 
> L.
> 
> 
>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:58, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a 
>> document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the 
>> odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Reshad.
>> 
>> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
>>> considerations”.
>>> 
>>> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
>>> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
>> 
>>   I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
>> but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
>> today. 
>> 
>>   He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and 
>> put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be 
>> called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
>> 
>>   Wonder how people would feel about that?
>> 
>>   Dino
>> 
>>   ___
>>   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

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Dino Farinacci]

+1

Dino

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Albert Cabellos  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
> with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one 
> out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
> 
> 
> I think that this another very good point, it is indeed strange and results 
> in a document without clear focus. 
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Albert
> 
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)  
> wrote:
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
> with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one 
> out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
> considerations”.
> >
> > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
> 
> I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
> but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
> today.
> 
> He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis 
> and put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can 
> be called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
> 
> Wonder how people would feel about that?
> 
> Dino
> 
> ___
> 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
> 

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Luigi Iannone]

If the items are unrelated why should they go to 2 different document, knowing 
that are not related to the data-plane neither ?

L.


> On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:58, Reshad Rahman (rrahman)  wrote:
> 
> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
> with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one 
> out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
> 
> Regards,
> Reshad.
> 
> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
>  wrote:
> 
>> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
>> considerations”.
>> 
>> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
>> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
> 
>I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
> but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
> today. 
> 
>He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and 
> put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be 
> called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
> 
>Wonder how people would feel about that?
> 
>Dino
> 
>___
>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

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Albert Cabellos]

Hi

I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a
> document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the
> odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.



I think that this another very good point, it is indeed strange and results
in a document without clear focus.

Kind regards

Albert

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
wrote:

> I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a
> document with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the
> odd one out). So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.
>
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>
> On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" <
> lisp-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of farina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute
> considerations”.
> >
> > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any
> objection or you have a better name to suggest.
>
> I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one
> document) but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after
> the meeting today.
>
> He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis
> and put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can
> be called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.
>
> Wonder how people would feel about that?
>
> Dino
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

[Reshad Rahman (rrahman)]

I don't have a name suggestion either, but I do find it odd having a document 
with these 3 seemingly unrelated items (mobility seems to be the odd one out). 
So I would be in favour of proposal from Albert below.

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-03-19, 4:53 PM, "lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci" 
 wrote:

> The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute 
considerations”.
> 
> The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any 
objection or you have a better name to suggest.

I don’t have a name suggestion (for the 3 items included in one document) 
but I would like to support an idea that Albert provided after the meeting 
today. 

He suggested to put the Mobility sections in an Appendix in RFC6830bis and 
put Deployment and Traceroute considerations in a document that now can be 
called “draft-ietf-lisp-oam”.

Wonder how people would feel about that?

Dino

___
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