Hi Albert, While that text works, the key point to make is that it is a matter for the mapping system.
Eliot On 3/9/15 1:23 PM, Albert Cabellos wrote: > Hi > > Thanks for your comment, I agree with you, in some cases (e.g., NERD) > LISP can operate as a push architecture. We used the term pull > arcihtecture to introduce the use of RLOC probing, please let me know > if the following paragraph clarifies the point that you rised: > > In most cases LISP operates with a pull-based Mapping System (e.g., > DDT), this results in an edge to edge pull architecture. In such > scenario the network state is stored in the control-plane while the > data-plane pulls it on demand. This has consequences concerning the > propagation of xTRs reachability/liveness information since pull > architectures require explicit mechanisms to propagate this > information. As a result LISP defines a set of mechanisms to inform > ITRs and PITRS about the reachability of the cached RLOCs: > > Albert > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Eliot Lear <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier (attention elsewhere). > > On 3/3/15 11:09 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thank you for this document. It is really helpful to have a clear > > introduction to LISP, and I appreciate the hard work that has > gone into > > producing this text. > > > > I have a small Discuss that is easily fixed. The essence is that you > > should limit this document to a description of LISP and not try > to use > > it to bash other solutions. > > > > In Section 4.2 > > > > On the contrary BGP is a > > push architecture, where the required network state is pushed by > > means of BGP UPDATE messages to BGP speakers. > > > > You will be aware of RFC 5291 and the use of ORF to make BGP a > pull-mode > > protocol. > > > > (I won't say to you that LISP is push mode because a Map-Reply > pushes > > the mapping information from the map server to the client :-) > > > > So, my advice is to describe LISP in this document and to not make > > comments about other systems. It isn't a beauty contest and it isn't > > wise to try to say "my system is better/different from yours". > > > > The solution is to just remove this sentence. > > > > Similarly in 7.1 > > > > BGP is the standard protocol to implement inter-domain > routing. With > > BGP, routing information are propagated along the network and > each > > autonomous system can implement its own routing policy that will > > influence the way routing information are propagated. The direct > > consequence is that an autonomous system cannot precisely > control the > > way the traffic will enter the network. > > > > As opposed to BGP, a LISP site can strictly impose via which > ETRs the > > traffic must enter the the LISP site network even though the path > > followed to reach the ETR is not under the control of the > LISP site. > > > > Let's not get into the "BGP this, BGP that" debate. Just remove the > > first paragraph and the first four words of the second > paragraph. That > > way you avoid all contention and write a document about LISP. > > > I would go further. Whether LISP is a pull- or a push > architecture (or > something else) is entirely a characteristic of the mapping system > used. The one in common use today is indeed a pull architecture. The > text discussing push/pull, therefore, should be addressed to the > mapping > system. > > Eliot > > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
