It appears to me that there are contexts in which it is likely that ILA
is useful.
Using the example of the progression of LISP, I have concern with the
current approach of NOT spelling out how and where it would be used.
LISP started out as experimental in significant part because it was not
clear where it would be useful. We re now progressing it to PS with a
clear context. And that context is NOT Internet-wide deployment for
Internet scaling. Because that deployment problem is REALLY challenging.
As such, if ILA wants to either be developed for the data center context
or be developed as an interesting experiment across a range of potential
uses, I can not object.
I do have problems moving it forward towards standards track for some
unspecified but general use in its current form. The dependence of the
data plane protocol on the information distribution is so strong that I
do not see how the general case can be treated.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/13/17 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
