On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:43 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> On 03.02.2012 20:21, Darrel Lewis wrote:
>> Jari,
>>
>> Sorry for taking so long to respond to your review. Please find suggested
>> text below as well as a proposed -03 draft attached.
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 1:27 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>>> I have reviewed this document.
>>>
>>> In general, it is well written and almost ready to go forward. There are a
>>> couple of areas that need further text, however. The main issue is a clear
>>> description of the to-experiment and problematic areas of LISP
>>> interworking. (Making those is also needed in order to get the document
>>> approved, based on experience of taking the other Lisp documents to the
>>> IESG.) Another issue is that I think the security considerations text needs
>>> work.
>>>
>>> In moder detail:
>>>
>>> Technical issue: As with the other documents from the group, Section 1
>>> should include a high-level explanation of what issues are uncertain,
>>> potentially problematic, or worth experimenting on. For instance, I presume
>>> you should say something about the effects of having to NAT traffic,
>>> finding deployment motivations to set up proxy ITRs, possible inclusion of
>>> too much non-aggregated EID space in the DFZ, effects of the asymmetric
>>> PITR routing, and so on.
>>>
>>> Please suggest text.
>> I suggest adding the following paragraph to the end of the Introduction
>> (Section 1).
>>
>> Several areas concerning the Interworking of LISP and non-LISP sites
>> remain open
>> for further study. These areas include an examination the impact of
>> LISP-NAT on
>> internet traffic and applications, understanding the deployment
>> motivations for
>> the deployment and operation of Proxy Tunnel Routers, the impact of EID
>> routes
>> originated by these Proxy Tunnel Routers into the Internet's Default Free
>> Zone,
>> and the effects of Proxy Tunnel Routers on internet traffic and
>> applications.
>> of Proxy Tunnel Routers on internet traffic and applications. This
>> analysis will
>> explain what role Proxy Tunnel Routers and NAT will play in the expected
>> ongoing
>> presence of both LISP and non-LISP sites in the Internet.
>
>
> Some duplication above ("of Proxy ....")
Ack.
>
> I like the beginning part, but I would replace the last sentence with:
>
> "Until these issues are fully understood, it is possible that the
> interworking mechanisms described in this document are hard to deploy, or may
> have unintended consequences to applications."
>
> (I think that is a true statement. And I'm not trying to be negative, but
> from processing the other docs in the IESG, it is clear that we cannot get
> the documents approved without safety warnings like this.)
I'm fine with this text Jari, consider it changed.
<snip>
>>
>>
>>>> 9. Security Considerations
>>> Technical issue: This section seems a bit thin. I'd love to see a
>>> discussion of the following additional issues:
>>>
>>> Implications to firewalls? Are there any? What about asymmetric routing?
>> I don't now of any implications to firewalls, asymmetric routing is
>> problematic for any multi-homed site and its my belief that
>> LISP-Interworking has no impact on this beyond what LISP introduces with
>> multihoming. That is, if you multi-home today (with LISP or BGP) you get
>> the possibility of asymmetric flows. Interworking's schemes, by themselves,
>> don't seem to me to change that. However, if you can suggest some specific
>> examples to guide this discussion I'll be happy to produce some text, I just
>> can't think of anything right now.
>
> What you say above would also be good text to add, IMO. That is, lack of an
> impact is also useful information.
Ok thanks for the guidance will suggest text for you here. It seems like we are
in agreement. I will make these changes and post the -03 version.
-Darrel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
