Michiel, In general, the idea behind this draft is: LISP is inherently a well-suited protocol to serve as a southbound SDN protocol, however there are a few pieces missing. This draft tries to get together all these pieces and fill the gaps.
I agree that maybe "SDN extensions" is too general, since the draft does not cover (neither intent to) things such NB APIs for instance. My thoughts are now into pointing clearly in the title the "southbound" nature of the draft. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Michiel Blokzijl (mblokzij) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alberto, > > Thanks for getting back to me! > > I was thinking a draft title that incorporates "flow" would probably be > suitable, since you're extending LISP to deal with L4 flows. I was almost > going to suggest lisp-flowmapping, or "flow mapping extension for LISP", or > something like that.. But I don't know enough about the other projects you > are involved in to know whether a title like the above sufficiently and/or > correctly differentiates this draft from the other ones, if that's required. > Actually we did present a prototype of some of these ideas to the SDNRG with the title "LISPflow". However, as you point below, this draft is not only extensions to support flows ;) > > Also, I see headings like "Mapping subscription" and "Proactive update > pushing" (which mostly say TBD). Those strike me as elements that might be > useful independent of the n-tuple flow mapping concept. > > Best regards, > > Michiel > > PS: I'm glad to see people working on LISP+SDN! > It's my pleasure! :) Alberto
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
