Dino,
The naïve reader (i.e., me) may not understand the subtle difference between
the words "isolate" and "separate", especially when applied to routing systems.
Rather than making the blanket statement, it might be a good idea to compare
the degree to which the control and forwarding plane are separated in LISP and
the degree to which they are separated in push-based routing protocols"
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 5:04 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: Albert Cabellos; [email protected]; Damien Saucez
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05.txt -
> Decoupling
>
>
> > To me, this means that draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05 MUST NOT contradict
> RFC 6830. Now consider the following text from RFC 6830:
> >
> > "In order to maintain security and stability, Internet protocols typically
> isolate the control and data planes. Therefore, user activity cannot cause
> control-plane state to be created or destroyed. LISP does not maintain this
> separation. The degree to which the loss of separation impacts security and
> stability is a topic for experimental observation."
> >
> > Now, consider the following text from draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05:
> >
> > "Decoupled data and control-plane: Separating the data-plane from the
> control-plane allows them to scale independently and use different
> architectural approaches. This is important given that they typically have
> different requirements."
>
> "Isolate" means non-overlapping. But the control-plane and data-plane are
> generally separated. And in all architectures, when one depends on the
> other, you have to question how isolated the planes really are.
>
> The statements made in the intro document are general and not detailed, so
> it is not contradicting what we defer to as more detail in RFC 6830.
>
> Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
