It should be in draft-ietf-lisp-vpn. I haven't checked recently.

Dino

> On Mar 24, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dino, you seem to have responded to a different question than Luigi asked.  
> He didn't ask where the conversion was discussed, nor where it was 
> implemented.  He did not ask why you want it this way.  He asked where the 
> spec describes it.  That does not require email archeology.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Joel
> 
> On 3/24/2025 4:35 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> Dino,
>>> 
>>>> On 24 Mar 2025, at 14:51, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The low order 24 bits of the 32 bits in the control plane is used in the 
>>>> data plane.
>>> Can you point me where the conversion is specified?
>> No. It happened multiple times over a 10 year period. I am not going to take 
>> time to look it up. And it doesn't matter, the intent was to do a many-to-1 
>> mapping between the control-plane IID (32-bits) to the data-plane IID (24 
>> bits).
>> 
>> We did this at cisco so we were not limited to 2^^24 VPNs and potentially 
>> have to same size problem VLANs had. So if you build a collection of xTRs 
>> from the mapping system that uses the IID 32-bit value 0x00000001 and other 
>> set that uses the same value the control plane makes sure that the 
>> data-plane doesn't overlap among xTRs. So each set can use 0x000001 
>> (24-bits) in the data plane.
>> 
>>>> It’s a feature and implemented. Do not remove this. You break 
>>>> implementations.
>>> If you remeber you made the exact same argument for 9300. IETF security 
>>> review pointed out the inconsistency of the argument and ended up defining 
>>> IID as a 24-bit field.
>> You will break implementations. And I am trying to perserve them. I'm not 
>> going to bring this up again. If you do not include a 32-bit IID in the 
>> LISP-DDT draft, I cannot accept and support it.
>> 
>>> If I receive a data plane packet with a certain IID value on 24-bits and I 
>>> have in my control plane several 32-bit IIDs with the same 24-bits value 
>>> there is no way I can reasonably know which 32-bits IID is the correct one. 
>>> This can also be a security issue.
>> See above.
>> 
>>> We can agree that we have different views on this topic. Hoep the group 
>>> will help to make a decision ;-)
>> Just don't break implementations. Or more to the point, don't make 8111bis 
>> irrelevant.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>> L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> This has been brought up several times before (by you)  and I have made 
>>>> the same comment.
>>>> 
>>>> Dino
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 24, 2025, at 6:41 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Dino,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2025, at 22:04, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regarding what you said here Luigi, creating a 32-bit IID was 
>>>>>> intentiional so you can have more than 2^24 VPNs per instance of a 
>>>>>> data-plane. That is you can duplicate IIDs if different mapping systems 
>>>>>> were used for the same underlay.
>>>>> Yes, but RFC 9300 specifies IID as a 24 bits field. There is no 
>>>>> inter-operable description in how to convert a 32-bit field in a 24-bit 
>>>>> and vice versa. Hence we should just stick to 24 bits.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also there was something you said that was incorrect. You said "on the 
>>>>>> wire the IID is 24-bits”.
>>>>> You are right on this. I did remeber the 8060 type 2 LCAF wrongly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well when control plane messages are sent on the wire they are 32-bits. 
>>>>>> So in data packets its 24 and in control packets its 32.
>>>>> Which is an inconsistency and we should fix this now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Luigi
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <PastedGraphic-1.png>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> lisp mailing list -- [email protected]
>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to