Hi Alia, > On 05 Mar 2015, at 23:13, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Luigi, > > Yes, Adrian also picked up on the "typically" for EID and RLOC and the > proposed response fixes that as well as the BGP issues. > > I don't recall seeing the "oh, routers can just do with with a software > upgrade" claim fixed.
because it is lost in a lot of other fixes ;-) The authors propose to change the wording in the following way: "Adding LISP capabilities to routers does not mandate hardware changes and can be done via a software upgrade." The point authors are trying to make is not about how to install LISP in your boxes, is more about the fact that the protocol does not need new hardware. Obviously you there can be hardware implementations, but as you rightfully point out, this is not the place to mention them. So, the above sentence looks appropriate, unless we want to simplify even more and just state: "Adding LISP capabilities to routers does not mandate hardware changes." What do you think? ciao Luigi > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Alia > > thanks for the review. > > I have just one comment right in the middle of your review. > > > On 05 Mar 2015, at 16:14, Alia Atlas <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-12: Discuss > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/ > > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/> > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I support Adrian's discuss. In a similar vein: > > > > In Sec 3.2: Please either remove the claim of "Such LISP capable > > routers, in most cases, only require a software upgrade." or explain > > how you can justify the need to add and remove new encapsulations and > > handle the various flag triggers and caching at line rate. There is > > no need for such marketing in this document. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 1) Sec 1, second paragraph: > > "LISP creates two separate namespaces, EIDs (End-host IDentifiers) > > and > > RLOCs (Routing LOCators), both are typically syntactically identical > > to the current IPv4 and IPv6 addresses." > > > > What does "typically" mean? As far as I'm aware, they are > > syntactically identical. This is reiterated in Sec 3.2; are you just > > trying to preserve the point of architectural freedom? I've found > > the > > third instance of insisting that the EID or RLOC now is only > > "typically" > > an IPv4 or IPv6 address. Please lose "typically". Minorly, the , > > before both should be a ;. > > > > I think that the changes the authors already proposed to Adrian fix the above > Discuss and comments. > Can you check if I am correct? > > From this point down is just typos/grammar, so authors will easily fix your > helpful comments > > thanks again > > ciao > > L. > > > > > > > 2) top paragraph of p.4: > > "The initial motivation in the LISP effort is to be found in the > > routing scalability problem [RFC4984], where, if LISP is completely > > deployed, the Internet core is populated with RLOCs while Traffic > > Engineering mechanisms are pushed to the Mapping System." > > > > Instead of "LISP is completely deployed" to "LISP were to be > > completely deployed" - making it subjunctive. > > > > 3) Last paragraph in Sec 1: > > "This document describes the LISP architecture, its main > > operational mechanisms as its design rationale." > > > > I think you mean > > > > "This document describes the LISP architecture and its main > > operational mechanisms as well as its design rationale." > > > > 4) In Sec 3.1, second paragraph: > > "Locator/Identifier split: By decoupling the overloaded semantics > > of the current IP addresses the Internet core can be assigned > > identity meaningful addresses and hence, can use aggregation to > > scale." > > I assume that you mean "topologically meaningful addresses" instead > > of "identity meaningful addresses". > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
