> Dino, > >> On 24 Mar 2025, at 14:51, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The low order 24 bits of the 32 bits in the control plane is used in the >> data plane. > > Can you point me where the conversion is specified?
No. It happened multiple times over a 10 year period. I am not going to take time to look it up. And it doesn't matter, the intent was to do a many-to-1 mapping between the control-plane IID (32-bits) to the data-plane IID (24 bits). We did this at cisco so we were not limited to 2^^24 VPNs and potentially have to same size problem VLANs had. So if you build a collection of xTRs from the mapping system that uses the IID 32-bit value 0x00000001 and other set that uses the same value the control plane makes sure that the data-plane doesn't overlap among xTRs. So each set can use 0x000001 (24-bits) in the data plane. > >> It’s a feature and implemented. Do not remove this. You break >> implementations. > > If you remeber you made the exact same argument for 9300. IETF security > review pointed out the inconsistency of the argument and ended up defining > IID as a 24-bit field. You will break implementations. And I am trying to perserve them. I'm not going to bring this up again. If you do not include a 32-bit IID in the LISP-DDT draft, I cannot accept and support it. > If I receive a data plane packet with a certain IID value on 24-bits and I > have in my control plane several 32-bit IIDs with the same 24-bits value > there is no way I can reasonably know which 32-bits IID is the correct one. > This can also be a security issue. See above. > We can agree that we have different views on this topic. Hoep the group will > help to make a decision ;-) Just don't break implementations. Or more to the point, don't make 8111bis irrelevant. Dino > > L. > > > >> >> This has been brought up several times before (by you) and I have made the >> same comment. >> >> Dino >> >>> On Mar 24, 2025, at 6:41 AM, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dino, >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2025, at 22:04, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Regarding what you said here Luigi, creating a 32-bit IID was intentiional >>>> so you can have more than 2^24 VPNs per instance of a data-plane. That is >>>> you can duplicate IIDs if different mapping systems were used for the same >>>> underlay. >>> >>> Yes, but RFC 9300 specifies IID as a 24 bits field. There is no >>> inter-operable description in how to convert a 32-bit field in a 24-bit and >>> vice versa. Hence we should just stick to 24 bits. >>> >>>> >>>> Also there was something you said that was incorrect. You said "on the >>>> wire the IID is 24-bits”. >>> >>> You are right on this. I did remeber the 8060 type 2 LCAF wrongly. >>> >>> >>>> Well when control plane messages are sent on the wire they are 32-bits. So >>>> in data packets its 24 and in control packets its 32. >>> >>> Which is an inconsistency and we should fix this now. >>> >>> Luigi >>> >>>> >>>> Dino >>>> >>>> <PastedGraphic-1.png>_______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org >>> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- lisp@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lisp-le...@ietf.org
