Subject: [lisp] Multiple ITR-RLOC fields in the Map-Request packet

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:59:12 -0700

We presented this at the working group yesterday. We would like to see  
if there any objections of putting this bugfix into the -07 spec.

Here is the proposed Map-Request packet format change:

I have also enclosed the slide-set. Notice the explicit case that  
breaks is:

What the above notation means is that if the ITR choses either a  
source address for the Map-Request or the ITR-RLOC field address from  
the IPv4 address-family, and the ETR only has an IPv6 RLOC address,  
the ETR cannot return a Map-Reply to the ITR.

The specific fix to address this problem is for the ITR to include  
both its IPv4 and IPv6 RLOC addresses in the Map-Request so the ETR  
can choose the ITR's IPv6 RLOC address as the destination address for  
the Map-Reply (and use its only IPv6 RLOC address as the source of the  
Map-Reply).

Slides from working group are enclosed.

Dino

---

From: Damien Saucez <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:21:10 +0100

Dino,

Slide 6, do we need to align the ITR-AFIx woth the 0 bit? If you have IP, it is multiple of 32bits meaning that once, the AFI is at bit 0, once at bit 16th.
If you do not impose the alignment, we will have REC that are not aligned. Can it be a problem while implementing (in hardware)?

Damien Saucez

On 23 Mar 2010, at 15:59, Dino Farinacci wrote:

> We presented this at the working group yesterday. We would like to see if there any objections of putting this bugfix into the -07 spec.
> 
> <Picture 4.png>
> I have also enclosed the slide-set. Notice the explicit case that breaks is:
> 
> <Picture 5.png>
> 
> 
> What the above notation means is that if the ITR choses either a source address for the Map-Request or the ITR-RLOC field address from the IPv4 address-family, and the ETR only has an IPv6 RLOC address, the ETR cannot return a Map-Reply to the ITR.
> 
> The specific fix to address this problem is for the ITR to include both its IPv4 and IPv6 RLOC addresses in the Map-Request so the ETR can choose the ITR's IPv6 RLOC address as the destination address for the Map-Reply (and use its only IPv6 RLOC address as the source of the Map-Reply).
> 
> <lisp-ietf-sna-map-replies.ppt>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:42:22 -0700

> Dino,
>
> Slide 6, do we need to align the ITR-AFIx woth the 0 bit? If you  
> have IP, it is multiple of 32bits meaning that once, the AFI is at  
> bit 0, once at bit 16th.
> If you do not impose the alignment, we will have REC that are not  
> aligned. Can it be a problem while implementing (in hardware)?

It doesn't matter that it is not aligned. And hardware won't process  
Map-Requests generally.

Dino

>> We presented this at the working group yesterday. We would like to  
>> see if there any objections of putting this bugfix into the -07 spec.
>>
>> source address for the Map-Request or the ITR-RLOC field address  
>> from the IPv4 address-family, and the ETR only has an IPv6 RLOC  
>> address, the ETR cannot return a Map-Reply to the ITR.
>>
>> can choose the ITR's IPv6 RLOC address as the destination address  
>> for the Map-Reply (and use its only IPv6 RLOC address as the source  
>> of the Map-Reply).
>>