LISP Interoperability Testing Margaret Wasserman mrwsandstorm net IETF
LISP Interoperability Testing Margaret Wasserman mrw@sandstorm. net IETF 76, Hiroshima, Japan
Interoperability Tests • Held in IETF terminal room on Monday evening • Four implementations represented – Most combinations did interoperate – Two implementation bugs found – Other reasons for lack of interoperability are wellunderstood • Some issues were addressed and interoperability verified later in the week
Implementation Status Cisco LISP Open. LISP � • Cisco NX-OS • Control and data planes • Static and dynamic map cache entries • Echo nonce, RLOC probe, RLOC reachability • IPv 4, IPv 6, Cross-AFI • Free. BSD 7. x kernel • Data plane only • Static map cache entries • RLOC reachability, map versioning • IPv 4, IPv 6, Cross AFI
Implementation Status LISP-Click ZLisp • Click Java Framework • Data plane only • Static map cache entries • Echo nonce, RLOC reachability • IPv 4 only • Portable C++ (Linux, Free. BSD, Mac. OS) • Control and data planes • Dynamic map cache entries • Responds to RLOC probes • IPv 4, IPv 6, Cross AFI
Interoperability Matrix Cisco LISP Open. LISP Yes [1], Data only Cisco LISP-Click Yes, Data only, IPv 4 only Cisco LISP ZLisp Yes [2], Data & Control Open. Lisp LISP-Click Yes [1], Data only, IPv 4 only Open. Lisp ZLisp No [3] Lisp-Click ZLisp No [3] [1] After bug fix(es) [2] After RLOC probe handling added to ZLisp [3] Incompatible map cache configuration mechanisms, not yet addressed
Possible Specification Issues • Should it be mandatory to support RLOC Probes? – If not, flag is needed in map reply to indicate support for RLOC probing • Support for map request/map reply needs to be mandatory, or static map cache entries need to be mandatory, or both
- Slides: 6