Subject: [lisp] Upcoming draft-lisp-06 changes - editorial

From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:07:58 -0800

All,

There are a number of comments and feedback received on the
draft-lisp-05 text.  Following is a set of proposed changes to the
draft, these are not ment to be substantive changes.

Dino (who has, up to this point tracked proposed design changes, will
send an email for each design issue that he's been tracking.  Once we've
achieved consensus on these changes, I will email a draft version
proposed text.  

    Editorial based changes:

    o  Posted December 2009.

    o  Fix typo for rflags in LISP data header.  Changed from "4" to  
       "5".

    o  Add text to indicate that Map-Register messages must contain a
       computed UDP checksum.

    o  Add definitions for PITR and PETR.

    o  Indicate an AFI value of 0 is an unspecified address.

    o  Indicate that the TTL field of a Map-Register is not used and set
       to 0 by the sender.  This change makes this spec consistent with
       [LISP-MS].

    o  Change "... yield a packet size of L bytes" to "... yield a  
       packetsize greater than L bytes".

    o  Clarify section 6.1.5 on what addresses and ports are used in
       Map-Reply messages.

    o  Clarify that LSBs that go beyond the number of locators do not to
       be SMRed when the locator addresses are greater lexicographically
       than the locator in the existing locator-set.

    o  Add Gregg, Srini, and Amit to ack section.

-Darrel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:35:31 -0800

> achieved consensus on these changes, I will email a draft version

Here are the design issues. I will label them in a subject line as  
"-06-(1)" through "-06-(4)" so we can track the discussion for each  
one in separate email threads.

Design based changes:

   (1) Use stronger language to have the outer IPv4 header set DF=1 so  
we
       can avoid fragment reassembly in an ETR or PETR.  This will also
       make IPv4 and IPv6 encapsulation have consistent behavior.

   (2) Map-Requests should not be sent in ECM with the Probe bit is set.
       These type of Map-Requests are used as RLOC-probes and are sent
       directly to locator addresses in the underlying network.

   (3) Add text in section 6.1.5 about returning all EID-prefixes in a
       Map-Reply sent by an ETR when there are overlapping EID-prefixes
       configure.

   (4) Add text in a new subsection of section 6.1.5 about dealing with
       Map-Replies with coarse EID-prefixes.

Thanks,
Dino