Thanks Dino! T.
On 7/02/12 2:45 AM, "Darrel Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
