On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not think classic Internet tunnels (e.g. IP in IP or GRE) are a good > comparison for ILA. The ILA mapping requires dynamic knowledge about the > remote end. (One of the things that is important about ILA is its ability > to hide dynamics.) > GUE at least is proposed specifically for use in data centers. > > I don't think this discussion, i.e. Tom's request to intarea was related to GUE which is already a WG draft. Also GUE is not specifically proposed for data centers, but it could be used in data centers with certain extension headers. I still think that especially if experimental/standard track is used means to manage ILA would be needed. My two cents :) Behcet > I think you understand my point, so I will not belabour it. > > Yours, > Joel > > > On 5/17/17 1:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> Okay, thanks for the clarification. It seems like either experimental >> or standard would be appropriate then. The other aspect that could be >> relevant is there is no change to on the wire protocol, I'm not sure >> how that would impact the track status. >> >> As far as how to control it, I would point out that neither GRE nor >> IPIP, probably the two most common encapsulations in use, don't >> specify an associated control protocol. We are taking that same >> approach with GUE and I think that same approach is good for ILA. It >> would be great to see a common control plane for tunneling and >> virtualization that solves the larger common problem (this is why >> IDEAS is exciting to me), but even if that existed it would never be >> the only means to control the dataplane. In some deployments simple >> configuration is more than sufficient, for example. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
