Hi Martin I´ve just posted clarifying this, find below the relevant paragraph updated (new text in *bold*)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis// After sending a Map-Register, if a Map-Notify is not received after 1 second the transmitter MUST re-transmit the original Map-Register with an exponential backoff (base of 2, that is, the next backoff timeout interval is doubled), the maximum backoff is 1 minute. *Map-Notify messages are only transmitted upon the reception of a Map-Register with the M-bit set, Map-Notify messages are not retransmitted. The only exception to this is for unsolicited Map-Notify messages, see below.* A Map-Server sends an unsolicited Map-Notify message (one that is not used as an acknowledgment to a Map-Register message) only in conformance with the Congestion Control And Relability Guideline sections of <xref target="RFC8085"/>. A Map-Notify is retransmitted until a Map-Notify-Ack is received by the Map-Server with the same nonce used in the Map-Notify message. An implementation SHOULD retransmit up to 3 times at 3 second retransmission intervals, after which time the retransmission interval is exponentially backed-off (base of 2, that is, the next backoff timeout interval is doubled) for another 3 retransmission attempts. *Map-Notify-Ack messages are only transmitted upon the reception of an unsolicited Map-Notify, Map-Notify-Ack messages are not retransmitted.* Please let me know if this clears your DISCUSS Thanks! Albert On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:35 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for confirming Martin. > > Dino > > > On Oct 28, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Martin Duke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yes, the design you describe here makes perfect sense. I did not get > this distinction from the current text at all. So yes, please reword it. > The framework you presented in this email is much clearer and may serve as > a good basis. > > > > Thanks > > Martin > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > If I parse your answer correctly, the answer to my question is 'no'. > So in the scenario where the Map-Notify is lost, both the Map-Register and > the Map-Notify are on retransmission timers. The most straightforward > reading of the text is that > > > - I respond to every Map-Register with a Map-Notify (if it requests it) > > > - For every Map-Notify I send, I start a retransmission timer. > > > > Let me be a bit more clear about how retransmissions of Map-Registers > and Map-Notifies work. > > > > There are two broad cases, > > > > (1) Map-Notify messages as an ack to Map-Registers. > > (2) Map-Notify messages that are unsolicited from Map-Servers. > > > > In the first case: > > > > (1) When Map-Registers are sent with the bit set to request > acknowledgment for Map-Registers received by Map-Servers, a retransmission > timer is set by the xTR for Map-Register retransmissions (which is more > often than the periodic Map-Register timer). > > > > (2) The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify for each received Map-Register. > There is NO retransmission timer for the Map-Notify. > > > > In the second case: > > > > (1) A Map-Server detects a RLOC-set change and wants to Map-Notify the > xTRs in the old and new RLOC-set by sending a Map-Notify message. These > messages are acknowledged by the xTR by Map-Notify-Ack messages. In this > case the Map-Server DOES have a retransmission timer for the Map-Notify for > each xTR. > > > > (2) The Map-Notify-Ack DOES NOT have a retransmission timer and simply > is sent by an xTR when it receives a Map-Notify. > > > > So having said that, you probably still want some better rewording. > Please confirm? > > > > Dino > > > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
