Sigh.. "Thanks Darrel" dammit. :-(
Long night/early morning. Sorry. T. On 8/02/12 9:36 AM, "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
