Luigi,
You and Dino both have a good point. We don't want to turn the LISP intro
document into a beauty contest between BGP and LISP. However, we do want to
explain what LISP is and what makes it unique.
The pull model is certainly among LISP's salient characteristics. So, the new
section should discuss the following:
- benefits of the pull model
- challenges presented by the pull model
- LISP machinery designed to address those challenges
I would be glad to propose some text for that section.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:58 AM
> To: Dino Farinacci
> Cc: Ronald Bonica; LISP mailing list list
> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
>
> As a personal opinion, I tend to agree with Dino.
>
> It might be better to compare pull vs push model without the specifics of
> BGP (or nay other push-based solution).
>
> Independently from whether we compare vs BGP or not, it is still worth to
> have such discussion in the document IMHO.
>
> Luigi
>
>
>
> On 12 Aug 2014, at 01:32, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > We should not compare LISP to any other protocol. We should define what
> LISP is. BGP and LISP solve different problems.
> >
> > Dino
> >
> > On Aug 11, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Darrel,
> >>
> >> Clearly, this is a WG document and the entire WG gets a chance to review,
> accept or reject a contribution. That goes without saying for any document.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:10 PM
> >>> To: Ronald Bonica
> >>> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list
> >>> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
> >>>
> >>> <Doing the same>
> >>>
> >>> I mentioned that I'd want to see the text before supporting (or
> >>> opposing) its inclusion... So adding sections seems somewhat
> premature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -D
> >>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally>
> >>>>
> >>>> Darrel,
> >>>>
> >>>> Fair enough.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that
> >>>> are
> >>> now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is "Differences
> >>> Between LISP and BGP". I will provide text within the next week or so.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM
> >>>>> To: Ronald Bonica
> >>>>> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list
> >>>>> list
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In order to help the reader understand the difference between
> >>>>>> LISP and
> >>>>> BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and
> >>>>> contrast the two. It should answer the following questions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time
> >>>>>> to push it
> >>>>>> - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time
> >>>>>> to pull it
> >>>>>> - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the
> producer
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>> consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable
> >>>>>> - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the
> >>>>>> producer and
> >>>>> consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I eagerly await your suggested text.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -D
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lisp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
