Hello, At the Chicago WG meeting I made a request that ILA be taken up as a WG item in int-area. The WG chairs and AD requested that we raise a discussion on the list about what else is needed to be done for ILA (Identifier Locator Addressing draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-04). The question was also raised if int-area is the right WG for ILA or if it should have a BOF.
The current draft of ILA describes the data plane and addressing, a model for ILA for ILA routing and network topology, several use case scenarios on how ILA might be applied, a format for identifiers to allow different types of identifiers and checksum neutral mapping. As I mentioned we intend to make the last one optional so that administrators can choose how structure the 64 bit identifiers as they see fit-- this will be reflected in the next version of the draft. The draft explicitly does not define a specific control plane (e.g. routing protocol) for ILA and I don't think that it should. IMO ILA would be better served to allow various methods that are protocol generic where ILA could be a use case of those mechanisms. For instance, draft-lapukhov-bgp-ila-afi-02 describes and extension for BGP. Similarly, if a protocol agnostic control plane is developed in IDEAS or in nvo3, then ILA could be one use case for those. I would think the control plane seems more appropriate to be in routing area than int-area. As for what is still missing in the core ILA draft, besides making typed identifiers optional, I think it is fairly complete for the data plane description. It is being deployed in a least on datacenter for network virtualization, and it is being discussed as part of a solution to support IP mobility (see 5GandIP discussions). Tom _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
