On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I am a bit concerned that the description of the cases does not work.
> In particular, if I am reading the text (preserved below) properly, it says 
> that the ITR can use the presence of a covering prefix in the regular BGP 
> table to tell that a destination is a non-LISP destination.
> But in order for interworking to function, all LISP EIDs must fall into 
> prefixes which are advertised into the regular BGP routing table by PITRs 
> somewhere.  As such, it seems that decision process 1 below would be 
> counter-productive, sending all LISP-LISP traffic through PITRs.
> 
> Since I know that what I am inferring is not what you intend, we need better 
> text please.
> 

Good point Joel, I think the text confuses the issue.  At this point the right 
way for a device to determine if the destination is LISP is to _look into the 
mapping system_  not the DFZ. How about simply removing the first numbered 
bullet, and adjusting the text?

I also noticed that I didn't provide in response to Jari on Section 8.  (though 
i right now I am at a loss for exactly what text to include I will think about 
it. and reply this weekend.

-D

> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 2/3/2012 1:21 PM, Darrel Lewis wrote:
>> Yes this is a good suggestion. Interworking pre-dated negative map-replies 
>> so the text hear isn't as clear as it should be.  How about:
>> 
>> 
>>    In case 3, LISP site to Non-LISP site, a LISP site can (in most
>>    cases) send packets to a non-LISP site because the non-LISP site
>>    prefixes are routable.  The non-LISP site need not do anything new to
>>    receive packets.  The only action the LISP site needs to take is
>>    to know when not to LISP-encapsulate packets.  This can be achieved
>>    by using one of two mechanisms:
>> 
>>    1.  At the ITR in the source site, if the destination of an IP packet
>>        is found to match a prefix from the BGP routing table, then the
>>        site is directly reachable by the BGP core as it exists and
>>        operates today.
>> 
>>    2.  An ITR knows explicitly that the destination is non-LISP if the
>>        destination IP address of an IP packet matches a (negative)
>>        Map-Cache entry which has the action 'Natively-Forward'.
>> 
>>    There are some situations where (un-encapsulated) packets originated by a
>>    LISP site may not get forwarded successfully to a non-LISP site.
>>    These situations are reviewed in section 7, (Proxy-Egress Tunnel Routers).

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to