If we want the documents to be informational, then it should be about a
context where we understand how to build the surrounding infrastructure.
For example, if it were documented for data centers, based on
Facebook's experience, I would have trouble objecting to informational
publication.
If we do not know where it applies, and what to try it out in various
contexts with various control setups, then that sounds like experimental
RFCs. While I have my doubts about some of the applicability, that
should not stop useful experimentation.
But an informational document that says that this can be used (roughly
speaking) ~anywhere you can figure out a way to control it~ seems a bit odd.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/16/17 11:25 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
On 14 May 2017 at 03:21, Tom Herbert <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Joel M. Halpern
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi Joel,
Intended status is listed as informational if that helps.
I tend to think that the relationship between an ILA data plane and
control plane is analogous to the relationship between the IP protocol
and routing protocols. Yes, there is a strong dependency on having a
control plane, but mandating a specific control plane as part of the
core protocol reduces flexibility and extensibility.
Put another way: the domain of applicability is the same as the
domain(s) over which the control plane operates. Any ILA packets
outside that/ose domain/s should just look like vanilla IPv6.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
