Subject: Re: [lisp] #68: What is the source address for a negative reply, which has a zero length locator -set ? (from Y. Rekhter's review)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:00:39 -0000

#68: What is the source address for a negative reply, which has a zero length
locator -set ? (from Y. Rekhter's review)

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  new => resolved
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Authors replied on the mailinglist that in their opinion there is no need
 to make any change to the draft. Neither the original person that raised
 the issue nor the mailinglist stated a different opinion.

-- 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical                      |       Status:  resolved       
Priority:  major                          |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |   Resolution:  fixed          
Keywords:                                 |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/68#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:00:56 -0000

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  resolved => closed

    Type:  technical                      |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/68#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:12:45 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

  * status:  closed => reopened
  * resolution:  fixed =>

Comment:

 The question raised in this ticket is still not answered. Thus the ticket
 must stay open.

-- 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical                      |       Status:  reopened       
Priority:  major                          |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |   Resolution:                 
Keywords:                                 |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/68#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:20:32 -0700

> locator -set ? (from Y. Rekhter's review)

The originator's IP address is the source of the Map-Reply. In the  
case of a positive Map-Reply from the ETR, it is the ETR's IP address  
in the case of a negative Map-Reply, it is the Map-Resolver's IP  
address.

This is basic IP packet origination, so I am not sure what you are  
really getting at. Please be more specific.

Dino

> Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/68#comment:4 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:29:40 -0400

Yakov,
     Would it suffice to add a sentence to the end of section 6.1.5 
along the lines of:
In the case of a Negative Map Reply sent from the mapping system, the 
source IP address will be the IP address of the device sending the 
reply, rather than being a valid RLOC, since there are no valid RLOCs 
returned.

?
Yours,
Joel

On 3/16/2011 3:20 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> The originator's IP address is the source of the Map-Reply. In the case
> of a positive Map-Reply from the ETR, it is the ETR's IP address in the
> case of a negative Map-Reply, it is the Map-Resolver's IP address.
>
>> Ticket URL:
>> <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/68#comment:4>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:35:04 -0700

> In the case of a Negative Map Reply sent from the mapping system,  
> the source IP address will be the IP address of the device sending  
> the reply, rather than being a valid RLOC, since there are no valid  
> RLOCs returned.

Joel, the source address selection has nothing to do with the contents  
of the control message. So why call this out specifically and make the  
document unreadable and block the flow of continuity.

What should the source address be for a positive Map-Reply?
What should the source address be for a drop-action Map-Reply?
What should the source address be when there are multiple EID records?

Why shouldn't those among the other 100s of combinations be included  
as well?

The answer is the same for all questions, *the originator of the  
control message*.

Dino

>>> #68: What is the source address for a negative reply, which has a  
>>> zero
>>> length
>> case

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:41:12 -0400

The reason is that the text in the last paragraph of 6.1.5 says "The 
source address of the Map_reply is one of the local locator addresses 
listed in the locator set of any mapping record in teh message ..."

The document makes a point of talking about the source adress here. 
That raises the question of what happens in the corner case when the 
reply has not locator sets.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/16/2011 3:35 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> Yakov,
>> Would it suffice to add a sentence to the end of section 6.1.5 along
>> the lines of:
> Why shouldn't those among the other 100s of combinations be included as
> well?
>
> The answer is the same for all questions, *the originator of the control
> message*.
>
> Dino
>
>>
>> ?
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:44:41 -0700

> source address of the Map_reply is one of the local locator  
> addresses listed in the locator set of any mapping record in teh  
> message ..."

Oh, if Yakov would have pointed that out, we could have fixed it ASAP.

> reply has not locator sets.

Consider it fixed in the next version.

Dino

>>> the
>> control
>>>>> #68: What is the source address for a negative reply, which has  
>>>>> a zero
>>>>> length

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:15:38 -0700

Joel,

> reply, rather than being a valid RLOC, since there are no valid RLOCs 

Yes, as the text you proposed above would answer the question 
raised in the ticket.

Yakov.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:19:06 -0700

Dino,

> Oh, if Yakov would have pointed that out, we could have fixed it ASAP.

I did point this out. From my original comment:

   This is part of Comment 24 of Rekhter's review

   Section 6.1.5 EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply message

    When sending a Map-Reply message, the destination address is copied
    from the source address of the Map-Request or Data-Probe message
    which is invoking the reply. The source address of the Map-Reply is
    one of the local locator addresses listed in the locator-set of any
    mapping record in the message.

   What is the source address for a negative reply, which has a zero
   length locator -set ? 

Yakov.

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:33:10 -0700

Then we missed it in the 100s of comments we received. We will fix it.  
Please be specific on the other items you think we did not fix.

Dino

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:24:45 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

  * status:  reopened => resolved
  * resolution:  => fixed

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/68#comment:5>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues