Subject: Re: [lisp] Proposed change to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:31:38 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

    > I think that this encapsulation only applies to the Map-Request. The
    > Map-Register and Map-Reply don't use it. Right?

Well, I wouldn't call it 'encapsulation' - it's authentication field(s) added
to Map-Request packets, and yes, AFAIK, the Map-Register and Map-Reply don't
use it.

    > There is other wording that also implies that the Map- Register and
    > Map-Reply will be encapsulated, and I want to confirm that they won't.

They will be 'encapsulated' (as in, wrapped inside another IP/UDP/LISP
header), but they will not have these authentication fields (AFAIK). Was
that what you were asking?

	Noel

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:38:02 -0400

> that what you were asking?

No, that's not what I was asking...

Vince's proposal indicated that we would change the encapsulation of  
the Map-Request (which was encapsulated in a LISP Data packet in the  
-04 draft) to use an outer header with port 4342 (instead of 4241) and  
a LISP Control message (instead of the LISP Data header) with a type  
of "Encapsulated Control Packet".

Vince's proposal didn't say anything about encapsulating the Map- 
Register and Map-Reply messages in the new "Encapsulated Control  
Message" format.  The Map-Register and Map-Reply are not encapsulated  
in the -04 draft, they are just sent as normal UDP/IP packets, and I  
don't think we agreed to change that.

Did I miss something?

Margaret

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:12:18 -0700

> Message" format.  The Map-Register and Map-Reply are not  
> encapsulated in the -04 draft, they are just sent as normal UDP/IP  
> packets, and I don't think we agreed to change that.
>
> Did I miss something?

The encoding is flexible. The spec indicates that Map-Requests which  
are sent to a map-resolver are encapsulated in the "Encapsulated  
Control Message". Map-Requests that are sent by an ITR that is  
attached to the ALT, does not encapsulate the Map-Request.

Dino