Subject: [lisp] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-35: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:02:53 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-35: No Objection

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-rfc6830bis/

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

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS.

Old Comment:

Sec 5.3. In the DSCP discussion, please add an information reference to RFC
2983, which provides guidance for DSCP and tunneling. It is not quite as simple
as simply always copying DSCP to the outer packet.

Sec 9. I don't understand what this sentence means:

"The value of the 'Weight'  represents the relative weight of the total packets
that match the maping entry." (s/maping/mapping, obviously)

What is the "relative weight" of packets? Is this the number of packets, the
cumulative number of bytes, or something else?

Sec 16. "If  the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by 
redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially  overloading it."

This not the only problem. The attacker could also DoS by directing traffic to
an unreachable RLOC.