Subject: [lisp] #23: inner source RLOC undefined in some cases

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:32:20 -0000

#23: inner source RLOC undefined in some cases
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:     
    Type:  technical              |      Status:  new
Priority:  minor                  |   Component:  ms 
Severity:  -                      |    Keywords:     
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 I am constructing the inner packet of a map request either because I'm
 directly connected to the alt or because I'm going to send an outer
 packet to the MR.

 I need to construct a packet as the same IP version as the destination
 EID I'm sending to.

 It is undefined what RLOC I use for the source IP address in the inner
 header if I have no RLOC of that address family.

 For example I have v4 RLOCs and am sending to a v6 eid.  It's
 undefined what RLOC I should use in the inner header.

 We should specify this.  Except for receiving ICMP errors generated on the
 alt, it probably doesn't matter much, but it is a deficiency in the spec.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/23>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:38:51 -0700

I don't think this should be an issue. It is a misconfiguration if you  
choose to want to encapsulate in a packet with an address family you  
don't have a address assigned to.

This is no different than say you telnet to an IPv4 host and you have  
no IPv4 address assigned. It should be left up to the implementation  
to decide to do.

Dino

On Sep 22, 2009, at 5:32 PM, lisp issue tracker wrote:

> ---------------------------------- 
> +-----------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------- 
> +-----------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:08:32 -0400

>>>>> "Dino" == Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]> writes:

    Dino> I don't think this should be an issue. It is a misconfiguration if you
    Dino> choose to want to encapsulate in a packet with an address family you
    Dino> don't have a address assigned to.

No.  I have v4 RLOCs and wish to send a packet to a V6 EID.  If the
ETR/ITR for that EID domain have V4 RLOCs as well this works.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:09:02 -0700

> ETR/ITR for that EID domain have V4 RLOCs as well this works.

Right, because you are encapsulating in IPv4. But if you encapsulate  
in IPv6, you need an IPv6 assigned locally to put in the source  
address field. If you do not, then you drop the packet (for the later  
case) due to misconfiguration.

So what is your point. You are not being clear.

Dnio