Hi Dino,
True! There are actually a few questions embedded in my original comment.
1) Is it a requirement for LISP packets to be routable over the Internet?
- If so, doesn't the outer header have to be IP?
- If so, doesn't the RLOC have to be an IP address?
2) If the LISP payload is IPv4 or IPv6:
- Does the EID have to be 32 or 128 bits
- If so, how is it "syntactically different" from an IP address
- If not, how can the outer header be either IPv4 or IPv6
3) Does the LISP payload have to be IP?
- If not, what protocols are allowed
- If not, how does the ETR know what protocol the payload is? The LISP
header doesn't contain a protocol id or ethertype.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 8:53 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Joel M. Halpern; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 - EID/RLOC Syntax
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Joel,
> >
> > If you put something that isn't syntactically identical to an IPv4/IPv6
> > address
> in the destination field of the outer header, how will it get to ETR?
>
> The question is actually malformed. If you out any address in a header (and
> you don't say what type of header it is), then the address is relative to that
> packet format.
>
> So what are really trying to ask?
>
> Dino
>
>
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:35 PM
> >> To: Ronald Bonica; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 - EID/RLOC Syntax
> >>
> >> The working group has other documents that define other formats for
> >> EIDs and RLOCs. These are defined with AFIs. In fact, AFIs are used
> >> in 6830 so as to allow compatible extension of the work. At the time
> >> 6830 was published, those were the two defined forms.
> >>
> >> Suggesting taht an extensible RFC prevents us from extending the work
> >> would be odd. Since we do have work under way (the LCAF draft) which
> >> defines many other forms, it is quite appropriate to for the
> >> introduction to indicate that a broader range is possible.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >>> On 10/11/14, 7:17 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> Section 1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 says:
> >>>
> >>> "This document describes the LISP architecture, its main operational
> >>> mechanisms as its design rationale. It is important to note that
> >>> this document does not specify or complement the LISP protocol. The
> >>> interested reader should refer to the main LISP specifications
> >>> [RFC6830] and the complementary documents [RFC6831],[RFC6832],
> >>> [RFC6833],[RFC6834],[RFC6835], [RFC6836] for the protocol
> >>> specifications along with the LISP deployment guidelines [RFC7215]."
> >>>
> >>> I interpret this as meaning that draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05
> >>> MUST not contradict RFC 6830.
> >>>
> >>> However, Section 1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 also says:
> >>>
> >>> "LISP creates two separate namespaces, EIDs (End-host IDentifiers)
> >>> and RLOCs (Routing LOCators), both are -typically, but not limited
> >>> to- syntactically identical to the current IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
> >>>
> >>> However, RFC 6830 says:
> >>>
> >>> "An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC2460] address of an
> >>> Egress Tunnel Router (ETR)."
> >>>
> >>> It also says:
> >>>
> >>> "An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value used in
> >>> the source and destination address fields of the first (most inner)
> >>> LISP header of a packet."
> >>>
> >>> Given these statements, how can the RLOC or EID by syntactically
> >>> different from an IPv4 or IPv6 address?
> >>>
> >>> Ron Bonica
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ lisp
> mailing
> >> list
> >>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lisp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
