Hi Lori, Thanks for the comments, see below.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Lori Jakab <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alberto, Robert, > > I'm really excited to LISP used as an SDN enabler!! > That makes at least two of us then! :D > > > You are right here. More fields beyond just the addresses, protocol and > > ports can be taken into account. For now, we are focusing on these only, > > but we expect to cover more in the future (thus, the n-tuple notation on > > the draft). > > I think covering more fields is a good idea. > Agreed. > > > > > Besides, please note that we may won't cover the same types that OF > > covers. We don't want to compete with OF, but rather to complement it. > > I don't think you would be competing with OF by specifying the same > match types as the ONF does, you would be using (implementing?) > OpenFlow, and that would lead to less fragmentation and more code reuse. > Don't get me wrong here. Maybe I explained myself poorly. I didn't want to say that we need to cover different fields. What I meant to say is that maybe we don't need to cover ALL the fields that OF covers. Perhaps a subset of those is enough for LISP. Of course, in the future maybe we see the need for covering more (all?) OF fields or maybe beyond OF ones. > > > It's about using the right tool for the job. OF is (generally speaking) > > focused on L2, while LISP is (generally speaking) focused on L3. That's > > why the 5-tuple makes more sense for LISP as a flow identifier than, > > let's say, ETH or ARP fields. Hope I had brought some light here ;) > > Well, OpenFlow is slowly adding support for L3 only flows, and LISP is > slowly adding support for L2 encaps. That's why I said "generally speaking" ;) > Even if you're initially focusing > on a few match fields, the design should accommodate a variable number > of fields, and the specification of field prerequisites (e.g., if you're > matching on a TCP port number, you should have an IPv4 or IPv6 packet). > > As Robert, I would really like OpenFlow compatible match support. > We had discussed that in the past. I think that it could make sense. Maybe we finally add that to the draft... Thanks, Alberto
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
