Subject: [lisp] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 15:51:52 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two issues rise to DISCUSS level, IMO:

Sec 5.7. Is the intent that the Map-Notifies are only retransmitted if they are
unsolicited? If not, repeated Map-Registers could result in a storm of
Map-Notifies.

Sec 7.1. I very well may have missed something, but it doesn't look like the
Map-Request is authenticated. So how can the ETR safely update its Map Cache
based on the information in the Map-Reply?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5. Please clarify that the 576B and 1280B limits include the entire IP packet.

Sec 5.4. Does the "weight" refer to the percentage of packets or bytes?

Sec 5.5. The first sentence should suggest that the Map Reply could return multiple EID prefixes.