> Another question: What does the Map Server do if it gets a request for a > shorter prefix than it has an EID for. E.g., I have a
Returns an empty RLOC-set with action “native-forward” with an EID-prefix that is equal to the EID-prefix in the Map-Request. > mapping for 10/8 (and nothing else) but I get a request for 10/4. The text in > S 5.5 suggests that I return an empty locator set. Is that correct? Yep. Dino > >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 6:11 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm trying to piece together the algorithm in 6833-bis S 5.5 >> for Map-Replies. The text says: >> >> A Map-Reply returns an EID-Prefix with a mask-length that is less >> than or equal to the EID being requested. >> >> So, consider the case where an MS has two mappings: >> >> 10/8 -> ETR1 >> 11/8 -> ETR2 >> >> If the Map-Request is for 10.0.0.1, then I would return >> >> 10/8 -> ETR1 >> >> Now consider what happens when I have three mappings: >> >> 10/16 -> ETR1 >> 10.0.2/24 -> ETR3 // New >> 11/16 -> ETR2 >> >> Now we turn to the remainder of this section: >> >> When an EID moves out of a LISP site [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility], >> the database mapping system may have overlapping EID-prefixes. Or >> when a LISP site is configured with multiple sets of ETRs that >> support different EID-prefix mask-lengths, the database mapping >> system may have overlapping EID-prefixes. When overlapping EID- >> prefixes exist, a Map-Request with an EID that best matches any EID- >> Prefix MUST be returned in a single Map-Reply message. For instance, >> if an ETR had database mapping entries for EID-Prefixes: >> >> I'm having trouble parsing this, but what I get out of the example >> is that the Map-Response is supposed to contain the EID-prefix that >> best matches the request, plus whatever exceptions would be required >> to create a correct routing table. So, that would mean in the case >> where the Map-Request contains 10.0.0.1, the MS would have to reply >> with: >> >> 10/16 -> ETR1 >> 10.0.2/24 -> ETR3 // New >> >> The first of these is necessary to provide correct routing information >> for the requested prefix and the second to avoid providing incorrect >> routing information for 10.0.2.1. >> >> Do I have this correct? It seems like the alternative is that the MS >> or ETR synthesize a new, more specific prefix. Is that what's intended >> instead? The example in S 5.5 suggests otehrwise, but perhaps I am >> misunderstanding. >> >> Thanks, >> -Ekr >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
