Subject: Re: [lisp] #108: "R" bit in Map-Reply message format (comment 22 reported by Y. Rekhter)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:29:52 -0000

#108: "R" bit in Map-Reply message format (comment 22 reported by Y. Rekhter)

Comment(by yakov@…):

 Here is the new text (from -11 version):

   R: set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the locator in
       the locator data record.  This receiver may find this useful to
       know when determining if the locator is reachable from the
       receiver.  See also Section 6.4 for another way the R-bit may be
       used.

 I'd like to propose the following replacement to the above:

   R: set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the locator in
      the locator data record (note that since having the route, by itself,
      does not imply that the locator is up, having
      the R bit set does not imply that the locator is up).
      This receiver may find this useful to know when determining if the
      locator could be reachable from the receiver.
      See also Section 6.4 for another way the R-bit may be used.

-- 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter:  wmhaddad@…          |       Owner:                 
    Type:  technical           |      Status:  new            
Priority:  major               |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                   |    Keywords:                 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/108#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:34:16 -0700

We mentioned this in the locator-reachability section. I don't think  
we need to repeat it again in a packet format field description area.

Dino

On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:29 PM, lisp issue tracker wrote:

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

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:45:03 -0700

Dino,

> We mentioned this in the locator-reachability section. 

Could you please point me to the specific text in the locator-reachability
section that talks about using the R bit.

Yakov.

> I don't think

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:46:40 -0700

> section that talks about using the R bit.

The Locator Reachability Section indicates that even if a route is  
present it does not mean you can reach the RLOC. That was the point  
you wanted us to capture.

Dino

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:58:54 -0700

Dino,

  R: set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the locator in
     the locator data record.  This receiver may find this useful to
     know when determining if the locator is reachable from the
     receiver.  See also Section 6.4 for another way the R-bit may  

The above text suggests that if the sender has a route to the locator
(which is the first sentence in the above text), then the receiver,
using the R bit, may use this when determining locator's reachability
(which is the second sentence above). This contradicts the point
you made above, namely that the presence of a route does *not* mean
RLOC reachability.

Yakov.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:02:43 -0700

These are hints as well.

Dino

On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:

>>>>> #108: "R" bit in Map-Reply message format (comment 22 reported  
>>>>> by Y.
>>>>> Rekhter)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment(by yakov@…):
>>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>> Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/ 
>>>>> 108#comment:
>>>>> 1>

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:06:37 -0700

Dino,

> These are hints as well.

That is precisely what is captured in the text I proposed.

Yakov.

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:09:59 -0000

Changes (by terry.manderson@…):

  * priority:  major => minor
  * type:  technical => editorial

-- 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter:  wmhaddad@…          |       Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial           |      Status:  new            
Priority:  minor               |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                   |    Keywords:                 
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/108#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues