Re: [RAM] New LISP draft available ...

[Scott Brim <swb at employees.org>]

I didn't see a reply from Dino so ...

On 07/22/2007 17:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> General points that aren't mentioned and perhaps should be:
> 
> MTU size reduction
> Fragmentation (in IPv4)
> Referrals (host A passes an address for host B to host C)

This kind of thing is a reason for maintaining current "address"
behavior.  What host A passes will be what host B believes its address
is, and what the LISP system considers to be B's EID.

> 
>> 4.1.  Packet Flow Sequence
> ...
>>    1.  host1.abc.com wants to open a TCP connection to host2.xyz.com.
>>        It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.com.  An A record is returned.
>>        This address is used as the destination EID and the locally-
>>        assigned address of host1.abc.com is used as the source EID.  An
>>        IP packet is built using the EIDs in the IP header and sent to
>>        the default router.
> 
> 'default router' seems wrong (it would typically be understood to
> mean the default router on the host's LAN). Doesn't this mean
> 'a site egress router' (which is ingress to the LISP domain)?

This is from the point of view of the originating endpoint, so it's
not the site egress router.  Whatever it uses to get its packets
forwarded to the destination -- probably a "default" router, but
technically "next hop router" is probably better.

> In 6.1.1 and elswhere you give RFC2434 as a reference for
> AFIs. There's nothing about AFIs in that RFC; in fact AFI documentation
> is a bit of a mystery.

Got a better reference?  All I know is BGP docs.

swb

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram