From tli@cisco.com Tue Jan 10 08:21:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2954821F8717 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:21:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FD6uboLY-euc for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599C521F86DC for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:20:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tli@cisco.com; l=626; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326212455; x=1327422055; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=ywaTHDFdyJ/aqpNZtqkSeCFnCIjXz07RUs7cwKudfP8=; b=dwIOsmZvhLRolhyjzoGFFDO4R38ZRdu2MRCQycn9R1ljIEJ1JTTo5z5E dd/5OkacxoMy7qVcxB0p0wF9G8P3o6+zyyRoUXQzJigzvC909sCiIJNgP /03oFFaLu0f4eHlwizin6cmvIA8brzGYZYDxFtLnQV37uRyn3wKlY7xan c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvwEADJkDE+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDrFmBBYILASc0gX6fCYEnAZ4riHeCOWMEiDqMUpJb X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,487,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24689939" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2012 16:20:55 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn1-380.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-380.cisco.com [10.21.97.124]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0AGKsZV018169 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:20:54 GMT From: Tony Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:20:54 -0800 Message-Id: <441EEC9F-B4E2-4936-B453-C51E9340C127@cisco.com> To: rrg@irtf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [rrg] Heads up: ILNP X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:21:00 -0000 Hi all, It's been quiet for a long, long time. However, work has been = happening. The IRTF has reviewed the ILNP drafts and, thanks to = extensive feedback, the ILNP team has undertaken a substantial rewrite = of the entire ILNP document set. You should have already seen some new = drafts circulated if you're subscribed to the Secretariat's mailing = list. Once all of the documents are available, I'll forward pointers to the = full set and, given the extent of the changes, we will be doing a full, = formal RG last call of the full document set. The floor is open for discussion. Regards, Tony From lear@cisco.com Wed Jan 11 01:13:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DF221F8716 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:13:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.216 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHlOq0hxwGJh for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4512321F870B for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:13:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; l=901; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326273184; x=1327482784; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+CswSM1ZsAGLfdiXdw5PFt+oEyJwazI6uXMowfPguqY=; b=GAUyVhcvmStr2yE8YC73sE9+EiXrEuetSMGBEu9nqsx4a8dupaFHiQVz qQLi3a7c/MPgV+MXqVX2hOTnEapJRANXf03yLJwXLcms1krXkbg2YmzuX LPs2s7Fg7pX5w34O5xGJTXIjjDfqiNnw9Dsjs+p3wVXBtrGW65eOMhrA6 w=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,492,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="126068667" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2012 09:13:03 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-55-89-84.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-89-84.cisco.com [10.55.89.84]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0B9D3CJ005183; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:13:03 GMT Message-ID: <4F0D52A0.4010206@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:13:04 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Li References: <441EEC9F-B4E2-4936-B453-C51E9340C127@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <441EEC9F-B4E2-4936-B453-C51E9340C127@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Heads up: ILNP X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:13:05 -0000 Hi Tony, Can you clarify which drafts you would suggest we review (by name)? Thanks, Eliot On 1/10/12 5:20 PM, Tony Li wrote: > Hi all, > > It's been quiet for a long, long time. However, work has been happening. The IRTF has reviewed the ILNP drafts and, thanks to extensive feedback, the ILNP team has undertaken a substantial rewrite of the entire ILNP document set. You should have already seen some new drafts circulated if you're subscribed to the Secretariat's mailing list. > > Once all of the documents are available, I'll forward pointers to the full set and, given the extent of the changes, we will be doing a full, formal RG last call of the full document set. > > The floor is open for discussion. > > Regards, > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > From tli@cisco.com Wed Jan 11 08:59:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1257A21F853B for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:59:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EmO73K87nCd for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A8921F86CE for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:59:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tli@cisco.com; l=665; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326301191; x=1327510791; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ximf2URxjGkauzeqw0vp9bUFutv+ewa3JgbT9FZ0Y2Y=; b=UiNhMCoG/fDhJJ9VKhH4vI7Pi+PvD+c4hEn8TAtmD24usfcxAVHUR6wV 8Bo9O59/zuD7Zzvb6KgM3xJ0BfRZxOt7EzM1WdLSyq9lFmrV1TgPRd6PH MNIGjI49Uxr9wdpe38XQ2eM99tJ/6Dg3v4YmxUWtJHSURZIag0vYZks4L s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,493,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="24887031" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2012 16:59:51 +0000 Received: from [10.155.35.230] ([10.155.35.230]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0BGxnR2015211; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:59:50 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <4F0D52A0.4010206@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:59:48 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0169E6D9-33CD-4D33-9CFB-9A8B463F1D77@cisco.com> References: <441EEC9F-B4E2-4936-B453-C51E9340C127@cisco.com> <4F0D52A0.4010206@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Heads up: ILNP X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:59:52 -0000 On Jan 11, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Can you clarify which drafts you would suggest we review (by name)? Hi Eliot, As of right now, the ones that have made it to my mailbox are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-00.txt Again, the floor is open for comments on these, so please feel free to = start reviewing now. Tony From ruichuan.chen@gmail.com Fri Jan 13 10:56:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492FA21F8530 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:56:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jxqs+I5eMxru for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:56:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0641321F852F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by yhpp34 with SMTP id p34so452376yhp.13 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=JcX9843I11935XbdHP7vRbJsc+5nntqN70q0Xz1j0FM=; b=yFrYESzlatrJcqNDoGcmQHeKHskwGFdUzpQ1VD3nxCVVn+if4OV31YSrWzuI/sJmti brwDcuYjH9TJvt0UnLCqQ20klCZ7Ry4UQ4I9rFfLvUFcCRgavQj1dZaLbPGJ/5e8KGji ZGq8WJZNqfU8U+hTYn3ol9aXLrBw8+cEFDxF8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.184.8 with SMTP id r8mr3651892yhm.110.1326480970517; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) Sender: ruichuan.chen@gmail.com Received: by 10.147.33.12 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:56:10 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TtGvYJ3OyUPa9owrL29YcFMvGKY Message-ID: From: Ruichuan Chen To: rrg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [rrg] Address-based Route Reflection X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:56:11 -0000 Dear all, The document below may be of interest: "Address-based Route Reflection" at http://bgp.mpi-sws.org/papers/abrr-CoNEXT11.pdf by Ruichuan Chen (MPI-SWS), Aman Shaikh (AT&T Labs Research), Jia Wang (AT&T Labs Research), Paul Francis (MPI-SWS) ==== Abstract ==== This work presents Address-Based Route Reflection (ABRR): the first iBGP solution that completely solves all oscillation and looping problems, has no path inefficiencies, and puts no constraints on RR placement. ABRR does this by emulating the semantics of full-mesh iBGP, and thereby adopting the correctness and path efficiency properties of full-mesh iBGP. Both traditional Topology-Based Route Reflection (TBRR) and ABRR take a divide-and-conquer approach. While TBRR scales by making each RR responsible for all prefixes from some fraction of routers, ABRR scales by making each RR responsible for some fraction of prefixes from all routers. Best regards, --Ruichuan From tony.li@tony.li Sat Jan 14 10:18:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028BE21F855E for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:18:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wDzbMYA6yb+t for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AB721F854A for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:18:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.89]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MWHf1i0041vXlb859WJR2Y; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:18:25 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn6-951.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MWJC1i00z52qHCY3dWJFXF; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:18:23 +0000 From: Tony Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:18:03 -0800 Message-Id: <3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> To: rrg@irtf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Lars Eggert Subject: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:18:28 -0000 Hi all, I'm very pleased to announce that after an extended duration, the ILNP = documents have been modified to address IRSG review comments. There are = now 7 documents in the full set. Links to the documents are here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-00.txt Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review and = comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. =20 The consensus check can be found here: = http://www.doodle.com/zfvazx94shuhei5d Please read, comment and respond to the consensus check by 12:00 noon, = PST Jan 28, 2012. Thanks, Tony From tli@cisco.com Sat Jan 14 10:57:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852E521F855F for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:57:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7l77Tkx9Q84 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE92021F8539 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:57:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tli@cisco.com; l=1676; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1326567442; x=1327777042; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ByhsDrGLB8wA9rVQadZG5iAoKiiaLnn9hGnPhkSjMUg=; b=C3NmcfygLv3Z3wH4iIwsIl8AcLVCNbFiesYkIKaeYROkLOv5psvGzyPF yq6fUOxL1wuwPG5IisQw1RXgpWv9nQ9J3IDn/Mki7nCI3W+w0h5Ch7aC1 1EB+oGtmh3MXgk9mYxNw+cyhGroQj0sZGSexQ5iV2uKVsrzSGuX/0t/6P U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAObOEU+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCrTaBBYFyAQEBAwESAQodPxALRlciGYdYCJgAAZ12iHuCOWMEiDuMVpJi X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,510,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="25282209" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2012 18:57:22 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn6-951.cisco.com (sjc-vpn6-951.cisco.com [10.21.123.183]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0EIvLWT013322; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:57:22 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:57:21 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4749A0D1-EB8C-44B3-B6CA-EA6E8B5E92F0@cisco.com> References: <3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> To: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Lars Eggert Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents [Corrected] X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:57:31 -0000 Whoops. There are 9 documents in the full set. The other two are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-00.txt Thanks to Dae Young Kim for noticing my goof. Please note that the consensus check description on doodle.com has a = scalability issue and cannot support the full links for all documents. = I've reduced that to just use document filenames. Missed it by that much, Tony On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Tony Li wrote: >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I'm very pleased to announce that after an extended duration, the ILNP = documents have been modified to address IRSG review comments. There are = now 7 documents in the full set. Links to the documents are here: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-00.txt >=20 > Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review = and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. =20 >=20 > The consensus check can be found here: = http://www.doodle.com/zfvazx94shuhei5d >=20 > Please read, comment and respond to the consensus check by 12:00 noon, = PST Jan 28, 2012. >=20 > Thanks, > Tony >=20 >=20 From rja.lists@gmail.com Sun Jan 15 05:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FFC21F8487 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.226 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.426, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIbULH7-07vu for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f47.google.com (mail-qw0-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCB121F847B for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by qap15 with SMTP id 15so1883862qap.13 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:47:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=hULLqFRhxelikGwY6Qin8Q371aYo24WKYEP7AA4JEPs=; b=OckibDlA9FQ1RhdCw7EK6PmOIJQLtkIdzKGKfrGALBp67ZQIjAFndgXKk2cHVtXH8G PoJBOX1GjNS+7am8O/KTnndQFpooEpi5yeb/6/mR42hCRlUYESlambEtgwmQxN0l6lH2 gCIbQCzrN8r1yMhwDHqhDZvqN5efxV7LKwLas= Received: by 10.224.186.78 with SMTP id cr14mr10088444qab.11.1326635241712; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.20.12] (pool-96-225-134-175.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [96.225.134.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r17sm30355532qap.11.2012.01.15.05.47.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:47:20 -0800 (PST) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:47:20 -0500 Message-Id: To: IRTF Routing RG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Subject: [rrg] ILNP documents: clarification X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:47:24 -0000 Hi, While the ILNP document set has been significantly edited and rewritten, it is important to understand that the technical content has not changed. The recommended reading order would begin with [ILNP-ARCH], then [ILNP-ENG] and [ILNP-DNS], then continue with other drafts. Some highlights of what did change: - The former [ILNP-INTRO] was split into 2 documents. - Architecture was separated into [ILNP-ARCH]. - Shared engineering was separated into [ILNP-ENG]. - ILNPv4 engineering details are more crisply documented than before, in [ILNP-ICMPv4] and [ILNP-v4opts]. These describe one set of engineering choices; the architecture also could be mapped to IPv4 with other engineering choices. A new document, [ILNP-ADV], describes several optional advanced deployment scenarios. These scenarios aren't really new, since they have been present in peer-reviewed research papers, but they are now pulled together into a single I-D to help make the ILNP document set more self-contained. This also permits a more crisp distinction between normal operation of ILNP and various optional scenarios that a given end site might choose to deploy. These documents had few edits: [ILNP-DNS] [ILNP-ICMPv6] [ILNP-NONCEv6] Yours, Ran From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Sun Jan 22 12:10:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0B421F8567 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:10:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.271 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.329, BAYES_20=-0.74, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBedAJc1ejwf for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:10:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E044021F8557 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id D36303AC2B; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:10:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E8CF3F01BA9; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:03:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:03:04 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Tony Li Message-ID: <20120122200304.GA25328@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <3707_1327261632_4F1C67BF_3707_53111_1_3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3707_1327261632_4F1C67BF_3707_53111_1_3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 11.10 (oneiric) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Lars Eggert Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:10:51 -0000 On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:18:03AM -0800, Tony Li wrote a message of 27 lines which said: > Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review > and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. I've read the documents (except the IPv4-specific ones) and I believe they are mostly complete and clearly explain how ILNP works. There is just one thing which seems to be absent: I do not find clearly stated how are the identifier and locator stored in the IPv6 packet. From some paragraphs, I guess the locator use the high-order 64 bits of the IPv6 address and the identifier the low-order bits but I was not able to find it clearly written. Another point is more a detail: the documents seem to mandate that there is a state in the machine for every ILNP correspondent (the ILCC). This is no problem for a HTTP server (there is already the TCP state) but more problematic for active authoritative DNS servers: today, they are able to sustain a very high activity because they have absolutely zero state. May be the ILCC could be made optional for stateless servers? (There is no need to receive locator updates for the ultra-short transactions of the DNS.) Otherwise, there is a typo in the references, draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in the docs (no 'v'). From tony.li@tony.li Sun Jan 22 12:27:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393F721F851E for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:27:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0j-BNbm1NsS for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:27:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A24521F851D for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:27:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.98]) by qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QkE81i00127AodY5CkTj2R; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:27:43 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn4-173.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta19.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QkTV1i00u52qHCY3fkTY14; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:27:41 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <20120122200304.GA25328@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:27:28 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <3707_1327261632_4F1C67BF_3707_53111_1_3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> <20120122200304.GA25328@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> To: Stephane Bortzmeyer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Lars Eggert Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:27:44 -0000 Stephane, Thank you very much for your comments. Tony On Jan 22, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:18:03AM -0800, > Tony Li wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > >> Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review >> and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. > > I've read the documents (except the IPv4-specific ones) and I believe > they are mostly complete and clearly explain how ILNP works. > > There is just one thing which seems to be absent: I do not find > clearly stated how are the identifier and locator stored in the IPv6 > packet. From some paragraphs, I guess the locator use the high-order > 64 bits of the IPv6 address and the identifier the low-order bits but > I was not able to find it clearly written. > > Another point is more a detail: the documents seem to mandate that > there is a state in the machine for every ILNP correspondent (the > ILCC). This is no problem for a HTTP server (there is already the TCP > state) but more problematic for active authoritative DNS servers: > today, they are able to sustain a very high activity because they have > absolutely zero state. May be the ILCC could be made optional for > stateless servers? (There is no need to receive locator updates for > the ultra-short transactions of the DNS.) > > Otherwise, there is a typo in the references, > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in > the docs (no 'v'). From ub@cs.uni-bonn.de Sun Jan 22 10:04:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F8821F8543 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:04:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.76 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8p8IAjN+dIVT for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:04:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de (postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de [131.220.8.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A4221F8540 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:04:28 -0800 (PST) X-IAI-Env-From: : [93.129.170.85] Received: from uli-nb-unibonn-wlan.fritz.box (koln-5d81aa55.pool.mediaWays.net [93.129.170.85]) by postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C8A5C403; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:04:26 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ub@cs.uni-bonn.de) (envelope-to VARIOUS) (7) (internal use: ta=1, tu=1, te=1, am=P, au=ub) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Uli Bornhauser In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:04:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Ruichuan Chen X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.3.3 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:30:05 -0800 Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" , rrg@irtf.org, Martin Horneffer , routing-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [rrg] [Idr] Address-based Route Reflection X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:04:32 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Ruichuan, I am really happy that we can see new concepts that address the iBGP = anomaly problem. A few years ago, we also worked at that problem. In = that context, we could already develop and publish a concept that = inherently solves the iBGP anomaly problem. A paper presenting the = concept was published at the LCN 2009 [1]. Focussing the demands of ISPs, we developed the so called "iBGP Route = Server Architecture". For the architecture, we *formally* proved that = the concept inherently avoids suboptimal routing decisions, inconsistent = routing decisions, and robustness problems (oscillation, = non-determinism). In the following document, you find all details on the = concept: = https://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ub/slides/bornhauser-phd-= 2011.pdf Against the background of that experience, let me give you some feedback = on your approach: (1) As far as I understood your abstract and the paper itself, your = approach realizes an information exchange that is comparable to = full-mesh iBGP (even if the information exchange is slightly different). = In principle, this leads to correctness properties comparable to = full-mesh iBGP. However, the conclusion that this means that your = concept implements an anomaly-free iBGP is not correct. To be precise, = it means: - - I agree that your concepts avoids robustness problems (especially = oscillation). - - Your concept still allows consistency problems. - - I disagree to your assertion that path inefficiencies are avoided in = arbitrary configurations. You find all the details and exemplary configurations on that in [2]. = The point here is that even if iBGP is clearly more robust than RR or AS = confederations due to the lower degree of information reduction, = operationally unwanted behavior (anomalies) may still appear. (2) To really guarantee an anomaly-free iBGP, your concept can be = developed in two different ways: Either the decision process has to be = modified (unwanted in general) or also clients (to be precise speakers = that keep eBGP sessions) have to provide more information to your = central component(s) than common iBGP specifies. You find the details in = the document I linked above. (3) Even if dividing the amount of information processed by a central = routing device by address space (and not by topological closeness) is a = helpful concept to avoid scalability problems, this should not be = necessary in most cases. You also find a detailed scalability analysis = for a large AS and the generalizing conclusions substantiating my = opinion in the document I linked above, too. (4) Assuming that putting no constraints on RR placements may also mean = that your abandon RRs at all (what you also propose in my understanding = by replacing TBRRs by ABRRs), your concept is not the first solution = ;-). Generally, if you modify your concepts to address these issues, you will = probably come to an architecture that is a mixture between the iBGP = Route Server Architecture and Iuniana's oBGP concept. Thoughts that may = help to improve your concept may be found in [4]. I would be really = happy if we discuss some further details on your concept.=20 Best Regards Uli [1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=3D5355200 [2] = http://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ub/papers/UB-KIVS-2011.pdf= [3] http://iuniana.ro/publications/networking_11.pdf [4] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=3D5735762 Am 13.01.2012 um 19:48 schrieb Ruichuan Chen: > Dear all, >=20 > The document below may be of interest: >=20 > "Address-based Route Reflection" at > http://bgp.mpi-sws.org/papers/abrr-CoNEXT11.pdf >=20 > by Ruichuan Chen (MPI-SWS), Aman Shaikh (AT&T Labs Research), Jia Wang > (AT&T Labs Research), Paul Francis (MPI-SWS) >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D Abstract =3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > This work presents Address-Based Route Reflection (ABRR): the first > iBGP solution that completely solves all oscillation and looping > problems, has no path inefficiencies, and puts no constraints on RR > placement. ABRR does this by emulating the semantics of full-mesh > iBGP, and thereby adopting the correctness and path efficiency > properties of full-mesh iBGP. Both traditional Topology-Based Route > Reflection (TBRR) and ABRR take a divide-and-conquer approach. While > TBRR scales by making each RR responsible for all prefixes from some > fraction of routers, ABRR scales by making each RR responsible for > some fraction of prefixes from all routers. >=20 > Best regards, > --Ruichuan > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr - --=20 https://net.cs.uni-bonn.de/ub -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) iF4EAREIAAYFAk8cT6kACgkQHjTkVxyUO5wRpQEAsB3x1kyG5L5hlQX4dXvHNCaW vqkR677GE0ZfzHOQ1gwBAIpeY6/OBZTYLbuc4pChHXycYsje6js1aKLPeEmjFIJC =3D5bYk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Jan 25 07:18:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF06D21F85C4 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.641 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mhpqhK69ZmgR for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B640021F8573 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAD0CD03A for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2581BD3084 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-52-140.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2C001BD3082 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:18:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F201D39.4010707@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:18:17 -0500 From: Joel Halpern User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [rrg] ilnp-adv comments X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:18:28 -0000 I sent the comments below about the ILNP-adv document to the authors. I was then reminded that they should also go to the list. Also, I reviewed the architecture and engineering documents, and found them readable and useful. They seem to me to be in good shape. (I still need to read the rest and fill in the doodle.) Yours, Joel ------------ 1) It would seem that section 2 ought to include some recognition of the existence of rfc 6296, which provides end-to-end session with address rewriting for IPv6. 2) Reading the description of split DNS in this document prompted me to think of a question that is more general. Suppose you have a site using LP DNS records. And a host within that site then moves outside. It retains its DNS name. It does the same DNS Secured Dynamic updated it always does when it changes location. Is the assumption that hosts know about, and update, their LP records? If so, how does the host know that it needs to update (remove) the LP record? If not, who does? (The split DNS case seems to just work correctly, even though that is what prompted me to think of the question.) 3) If I am reading -adv correctly in its description of address rewriting, you specify that the global locator used by all hosts in the site is the locator of the SBR. (Multiple SBRs works fine.) If the IPv6 site has multiple subnets, how does the SBR handle initial incoming packets? The SBR will not have seen the ND packets from the hsots. The SBR is not specified to be co-resident with the DNS, so it doesn't have the local locator registration. The packet doesn't have the DNS name. How does the SBR construct the correct local locator? 4) The description of site multi-homing assumes that a single SBR is being used. There appear to be difficulties if multiple SBRs are used, as the "movement" appears to require redirecting internal traffic and sending updates from a new SBR who does not have flow state to use to determine what updates should be sent. Should this be noted as a limitation? minor: figures 4.1c and 6.2 end up split across a page boundary. Yours, Joel From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Jan 25 07:48:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BEA21F85CC for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:48:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dvhuy4ZufUD0 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E4C21F85C7 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69D0CD043 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC2FD40859; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:48:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailb1.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-52-140.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A467D40849; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:48:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F202442.40404@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:48:18 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Saleem Bhatti , R Atkinson Subject: [rrg] ILNP ICMPv6 Format X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:48:27 -0000 The technical substance of this document seems correct. However, I find the descriptive technique slightly annoying. In order to deal with the alignment effect of squeezing in the Number of Locators, the text ends up providing two Examples, and no clearly labelled normative syntax description. I suggest the following cosmetic changes: 1) Start with a definition of the syntax, not "Example ICMP message body". 2) Define the syntax in terms of a fixed header which contains a first preference and first locator, and then multiple isntances of "additional locator" records, each of which contains two 8 bit reserved fields, a preference and a locator. (Two reserved fields so that the second one can be parallel to the fixed header reserved field, if we ever want to use the field.) 2') Then, in the description of "Num of Locs" do not describe it as the number of Locators that follow the reserved field. Rather, described it as "the number of locators in the message, There are Num of Locs - 1 instance of the additional locator record. Num of Locs must always be at least 1." or similar words. Yours, Joel From tony.li@tony.li Sat Jan 28 13:09:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5D521F84E0 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:09:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMmmxDtJEIXO for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:09:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEF121F84D1 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.12]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id T91m1i0040Fqzac5B99LDF; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:09:20 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn4-468.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id T9931i01052qHCY3U996jP; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:09:18 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <4749A0D1-EB8C-44B3-B6CA-EA6E8B5E92F0@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:09:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3F0CF3EB-A963-4453-B3BE-CFCF825A46E5@tony.li> References: <3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> <4749A0D1-EB8C-44B3-B6CA-EA6E8B5E92F0@cisco.com> To: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Lars Eggert Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents [Corrected] X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:09:21 -0000 Hi all, > Please read, comment and respond to the consensus check by 12:00 noon, = PST Jan 28, 2012. The consensus check on the revised RRG document set is now complete. = The poll can currently be found here: = http://www.doodle.com/zfvazx94shuhei5d Note that this web page will not = be available indefinitely. For the record, there were 6 participants in favor of publication and = none opposed. Those in favor were: rja (Ran Atkinson) Dae Young Kim Robert Raszuk Saleem Bhatti St=E9phane Bortzmeyer Joel Halpern During the last call, three comments were received on the mailing list, = 1 from St=E9phane, 2 from Joel. The RRG authors have not yet responded = to those comments, and they have privately indicated that they intend to = respond with document modifications. Based on this, we would appear to have a consensus of the RG, contingent = upon the satisfactory responses to the posted comments. After the = commentators indicate that their issues have been addressed, we will = then progress the revised document set. Regards, Tony From slblake@petri-meat.com Sat Jan 28 22:24:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B0421F84B4 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:24:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.592, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SwhW6RhRx+3W for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:24:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from elom.tchmachines.com (elom.tchmachines.com [208.76.80.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F0B21F84A5 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:24:29 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=petri-meat.com; h=Received:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID:Mime-Version; b=Nc+oFVknkBFinle43oP33RKne2TJ+wb2UdecQ7tXTQlCpDMZku9EsMYj4arT7zKaNl2LdTZDp/a/29AGvPWGbIukJwTRJfWvAWW15HIfpIf3S2HPDrxvkW+6NM7JfV+x; Received: from cpe-174-097-234-146.nc.res.rr.com ([174.97.234.146]) by elom.tchmachines.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RrOBd-0006L8-PI; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:24:25 -0500 From: Steven Blake To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:24:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120122200304.GA25328@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <3707_1327261632_4F1C67BF_3707_53111_1_3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> <20120122200304.GA25328@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3 (3.0.3-1.fc15) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1327818266.7125.5.camel@tachyon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - elom.tchmachines.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - petri-meat.com Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Lars Eggert Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:24:30 -0000 On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 21:03 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:18:03AM -0800, > Tony Li wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > > > Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review > > and comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. > > I've read the documents (except the IPv4-specific ones) and I believe > they are mostly complete and clearly explain how ILNP works. > > There is just one thing which seems to be absent: I do not find > clearly stated how are the identifier and locator stored in the IPv6 > packet. From some paragraphs, I guess the locator use the high-order > 64 bits of the IPv6 address and the identifier the low-order bits but > I was not able to find it clearly written. It appears that some text from draft-rja-ilnp-intro didn't make it into the reorganized drafts. I suggest the authors write a very short draft describing the ILNPv6 header. > Another point is more a detail: the documents seem to mandate that > there is a state in the machine for every ILNP correspondent (the > ILCC). This is no problem for a HTTP server (there is already the TCP > state) but more problematic for active authoritative DNS servers: > today, they are able to sustain a very high activity because they have > absolutely zero state. May be the ILCC could be made optional for > stateless servers? (There is no need to receive locator updates for > the ultra-short transactions of the DNS.) > > Otherwise, there is a typo in the references, > draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6 is written draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-nonce6 in > the docs (no 'v'). It makes no sense to use the ILNP machinery for a DNS query (or any similar UDP-based simple request/response transaction). One of the drafts probably ought to state this explicitly. [Yes, I know I am tardy submitting comments.] Regards, // Steve From wesley.george@twcable.com Mon Jan 30 08:57:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F7821F850C for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.259 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.194, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id usrMFfxPY8Dj for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:57:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFFE21F8507 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:57:27 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.10 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,591,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="331152682" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.10]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 30 Jan 2012 11:57:03 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.27]) by PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.10]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:57:12 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: Tony Li , "rrg@irtf.org" Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:57:09 -0500 Thread-Topic: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents [Corrected] Thread-Index: AczS7mJafXRjOvbVSnaw3EqmxTQMcAEr/05g Message-ID: References: <3D73ACA7-24DC-46B4-B933-0775F9E01E80@tony.li> <4749A0D1-EB8C-44B3-B6CA-EA6E8B5E92F0@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4749A0D1-EB8C-44B3-B6CA-EA6E8B5E92F0@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rja.lists@gmail.com" , "saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk" , Lars Eggert Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents [Corrected] X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:57:29 -0000 I know I'm also late, but I do have a few comments on the assembled documen= ts. I support publication as well. Ilnp-arch: 3.3 - Regarding the naming, I think that Identifier-Locator Vector seems fi= ne, but I think you should drop the hyphen from the acronym. Based on the w= ay that you're writing the term, the acronym should be either I-LV or ILV. Also, your choice of notation somewhat conflicts with the notation be= ing used in 3.4 eg It would be helpful if these were consistent, perhaps by adding the use of = [] or {} as separators as appropriate instead of overloading the <> symbols= . However, I do not recommend use of parentheses due to potential for confu= sion with the Multicast (s,g) notation. 6.1 - The advent of mobile phones with tethering capabilities sort of blur = the distinction that you make here. A mobile node can also be its own netwo= rk with subtended devices, meaning that in a way it is both host mobility a= nd Network/site mobility. I don't think that this fundamentally alters anyt= hing about the implementation so much as it's worth noting for completeness= . It seems that this is mostly discussed in 6.2, so it may be possible to s= imply cite this as an additional example. Nits - need to replace section x.y with correct reference: 3.2 "Section X.Y below describes in more detail how Locators are used by the routing system to forward packets from a sending node on an origin subnetwork to one or more receiving nodes on one or more destination subnetworks." 5.1 "However, ILNP supports graceful changes in L values, and this is explained below in Sec XXXX in the discussion on mobility support." Section 6 - there appears to be something strange going on with the subsect= ion numbering - there is a 6, a 6.1, then a sub 6.1 underneath it which I t= hink should probably be 6.1.1 6.1.1 - I believe that this "2) soft handover: the host sends Locator Update (LU) messages to CNS, but it uses both L_A and L_B until (i) it longer" was intended to read "it no longer..." Also, several of the informative references in both this document, ilnp-icm= pv4 and ilnp-eng seem to be incomplete, holding only the RFC number (no met= adata). Lastly, the Table of Contents for both the above-referenced drafts, ilnp-v4= opts, and ilnp-arp, seems to be incomplete/placeholder. Regarding ilnp-noncev6 - Section 3 says that this may likely be the only option in the packet - is t= here any consideration for option ordering if it is *not* the only option? = Eg should it always be first to aid in processing, etc? Also, Sections 6 and 7 deal with handling packets in various permutations w= here the nonce is and is not present based on the compatibility of the node= with ILNP. However, I do not see any text that is similar to the following= from ilnp-v4opts: "This IP option MUST NOT be present in an IPv4 packet un= less the packet is part of an ILNPv4 session. ILNPv4 nodes MUST include this option in the first few packets of each ILNP session, MUST include this option in all ICMP messages generated by endpoints participating in an ILNP session, and MAY include this option in all packets of an ILNPv4 session." And elsewhere: "[same text as above] + It is RECOMMENDED to include this op= tion in all packets of the session if packet loss higher than normal." The concept is covered, but I think that this text is more succinct in cove= ring the requirement, and I recommend that something similar be added to no= ncev6, and possibly ilnp-icmpv6. Regarding ilnp-v4opts - The security considerations section is missing any discussion about IP Opti= ons similar to what is present in ilnp-noncev6: " As this is an option with= in the IPv6 Destination Option Header, rather than an option within the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option Header, the presence of this option in an IPv6 packet ought not disturb routers along the path an IP packet containing this option happens to travel. Further, many deployed modern IP routers (both IPv4 and IPv6) have been explicitly configured to ignore all IP options, even including the "Router Alert" option, when forwarding packets not addressed to the router itself." I'm also wondering if there should be one or more informative references in= the security considerations for both noncev6 and v4opts regarding the hand= ling of IP Options, both to back up the assertion that ignoring IP options = is common practice to avoid DoS attack vectors, and also to give the reader= additional resources as to current BCP when it comes to routers beyond the= core of the network - eg draft-gont-opsec-ip-options-filtering, etc. Thanks, Wes George > -----Original Message----- > From: rrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Ton= y Li > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:57 PM > To: rrg@irtf.org > Cc: Lars Eggert > Subject: Re: [rrg] Last call for revised ILNP documents [Corrected] > > > Whoops. There are 9 documents in the full set. The other two are: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng-00.txt > > Thanks to Dae Young Kim for noticing my goof. > > Please note that the consensus check description on doodle.com has a > scalability issue and cannot support the full links for all documents. I= 've > reduced that to just use document filenames. > > Missed it by that much, > Tony > > > On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Tony Li wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm very pleased to announce that after an extended duration, the ILNP > documents have been modified to address IRSG review comments. There are = now 7 > documents in the full set. Links to the documents are here: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00.txt > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4-00.txt > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts-00.txt > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns-00.txt > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-00.txt > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-00.txt > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-00.txt > > > > Given the extent of the changes, it's appropriate that the RG review an= d > comment, with a full two week review cycle and consensus check. > > > > The consensus check can be found here: > http://www.doodle.com/zfvazx94shuhei5d > > > > Please read, comment and respond to the consensus check by 12:00 noon, = PST > Jan 28, 2012. > > > > Thanks, > > Tony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout.