From: Jeff Wheeler <[email protected]>
Date: July 10, 2011 1:43:40 PM PDT
To: NANOG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6
broken?)
I am not on the Nanog mailing list but a friend forwarded this to me.
I would like to respond to your LISP comments Jeff. See responses
inline.
I have copied the [email protected] mailing list.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
Number two: While anyone can participate, approaching IETF as an
operator requires a rather thick skin, or, at least it did the last
couple
of times I attempted to participate. I've watched a few times where
I am subscribed to the IDR (BGP, etc.) and LISP lists. These are
populated with different people and cover entirely different topics.
My opinion is the following:
* The IDR list is welcoming of operators, but whether or not your
opinion is listened to or included in the process, I do not know.
Randy Bush, alone, posts more on this list than the sum of all
operators who post in the time I've been reading. I think Randy's
influence is 100% negative, and it concerns me deeply that one
individual has the potential to do so much damage to essential
protocols like BGP. Also, the priorities of this list are pretty
fucked. Inaction within this working group is the reason we still
don't have expanded BGP communities for 32 bit ASNs. The reason for
this is operators aren't participating. The people on the list or the
current participants of the WG should not be blamed. My gripe about
Randy Bush having the potential to do huge damage would not exist if
there were enough people on the list who understand what they're doing
to offer counter-arguments.
operators were shouted down by purists and religion over basic
real-world operational concerns. It seems to be a relatively routine
practice and does not lead to operators wanting to come back to
an environment where they feel unwelcome.
I have found my input on the LISP list completely ignored because, as
you suggest, my concerns are real-world and don't have any impact on
someone's pet project. LISP as it stands today can never work on the
I bet your concerns are real-world but there are a lot of reasons why
there is a lack of response on mailing lists. Maybe a lot is going on
at the time or people are too busy to respond. But we, the LISP
authors take input very seriously. I can speak for myself, we do not
want to ignore the mailing list. It is the mailing list that has
brought LISP to where it is today. And many are grateful of that.
If you could please restate on the list what your concerns are, we can
have a discussion.
Internet, and regardless of the fine reputations of the people at
Cisco and other organizations who are working on it, they are either
furthering it only because they would rather work on a pet project
than something useful to customers, or because they truly cannot
Many of us have been working on the Internet for a very long time. We
do so because we have passion to keep growing and scaling it. That is
a basic fact. If you think that sounds cliche, then I am sorry for
that. But, at least for me, it is simple as that.
understand its deep, insurmountable design flaws at Internet-scale.
You would generally hope that someone saying, "LISP can't work at
Internet-scale because anyone will be able to trivially DoS any LISP
ITR ('router' for simplicity),
Many have made this comment and that is why we have been working hard
on cache management to see, if in practice, this is a real problem.
The Internet has caches all over the place, some have proven to work
extremely well and the Internet would not be at the scale it is today
without them.
Many researchers have looked at ITR caching and there are papers
published that discuss pros and cons.
but here is a way you can improve it,"
well, that remark, input, and person should be taken quite seriously,
What data do you have that it was not taken seriously?
their input examined, and other assumptions about the way LISP is
supposed to work ought to be questioned. None of this has happened.
The main spec has gone through 29 revisions. LISP have been in review
for 4 years both in the IRTF and the IETF. There is a pilot network
with approximately 120 boxes in 25 countries. This is a very serious
undertaking. There are real resources and real dollars going into this.
LISP is a pet project to get some people their Ph.D.s and keep some
People will get their Ph.D's from all kinds of networking research.
That is the nature of the beast and of course not specific to LISP.
old guard vendor folks from jumping ship to another company. It is a
shame that the IETF is manipulated to legitimize that kind of thing.
Both points are hard to comment on without being negative. And I don't
want to be negative. I want to take your comments as constructive and
start a technical discussion on your concerns.
Then again, I could be wrong. Randy Bush could be a genius and LISP
could revolutionize mobility.
We are all wrong and we are all right. Let's start the technical
discussion.
Thanks,
Dino
--
Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]>
Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
