In conjunction with the WG last call on this document, I performed my
own review.
It appears that the text in section 3.1 on Map Server deployment asserts
that (for EIDs outside of an allocated IPv6 block) Map Servers will need
to be run by the RIRs. I strongly hope this is not the case. The RIRs
have not signed up to run this service. Given that there are already
existing ways for sites to prove provenance for PI address blocks, some
other mechanism would seem achievable.
Minor issues:
I find the characterization of site edge in section 2.1, "can be
approximated as the the set of DFZ routers belonging to non-transit
ASes" To be a weak approximation. It fails basically because the CE and
PE routers for many sites are either non-BGP speakers, or use default
routes. Also, the BGP properties of the site do not seem relevant to
the LISP deployment issues, so I wonder why they are even mentioned here.
Should section 2.3 on split ITR/ETR note that in placing the ITRs
inside the site, the ITRs will still need global RLOCs, and this may add
complexity to intra-site routing configuration, and further intra-site
issues when there is a change of providers?
In the last sentence of section 2.5.1 on ITR behind NAT, cold we
add an "only"? The sentence would become "This setup supports only a
single ITR behind the NAT device."
Should sections 5.2 and 5.3 on P-ITR deployment note that there are
likely to be additional costs involved, to be borne by some party, since
the P-ITR devices under consideration are handling all
non-LISP-originated traffic for the customer sites?
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
