Joel, Luigi,
thanks for starting this conversation.
On 7/1/15 7:18 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
One of the things Luigi and I as chairs would like to do in Prague is
spend some time discussing among the WG participants what we want to
work on going forward. To enable this, we would like to start
discussion on the list. We will also follow the face to face with a
summary to the list and further discussion.
There are two aspects that are related but distinct, so to start this
off I want to identify them and ask folks to comment on them separately.
First, there is the question of direction for the basic LISP
specification. We can leave it as it is. However, folks have asked
us about moving it to Proposed Standard. Based on our reading and
discussion with relevant ADs, one path to do this would be to refocus
the specification away from the core Internet scaling problems, and
instead towards a scalable anxd flexible overlay technology. This
would not change the technical procedures, but would have significnat
impact on the descriptive text.
Does the WG think this is a good idea? If so, do folks want to do it?
I think it is a good idea, and I would be willing to work to make it
happen. In my experience with LISP deployments over the last few years,
LISP has brought the most value to the table when used as a scalable,
flexible, and (I would add to your list of attributes) programmable
overlay technology.
I suspect this refocusing will make the life of the WG a little simpler,
as the focus on core internet scaling problems has put the work done
under a very tight scrutiny, some time making harder to evolve the
protocol in the direction where a scalable overlay technology should go.
Second, there are a large number of pieces that people have proposed
(many with drafts). There are probably too many to include everything
in the charter. Which things do people think are important for the
WG. In particular, explanations of why particular items are
important, and comments pro or con from folks who are not the document
authors are particularly useful to the community. (I doubt that there
will be significant negative comment since I have not seen proposals
that are bad ideas. However, the WG has to prioritize and choose.)
I agree, the new charter should help the WG focusing on LISP
applications. As you note there have been quite a few proposals, but I
think they can be summarized in a few areas (and relative use cases):
- LISP VPN (including integration with IPsec)
- NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including support for VM mobility)
- SDN/NFV (including support for service chaining)
- IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure for IoT applications)
- Mobile Node (LISP-MN mobility)
I think the first 3 areas may drive an important change that, in my
opinion, the WG should consider to include in the charter: how to
support a multi-protocol encapsulation that allows integration with
IPsec, support for L2 overlays, and support for explicit tagging and
end-to-end metadata. With NVO3 selecting VXLAN-GPE as one of the
supported encapsulations, and given the striking similarities with the
LISP encap, I think the new drafts should be required to support both
LISP and VXLAN-GPE encapsulations, as the LISP-GPE draft is trying to
suggest.
There are a lot of common attributes for an overlay technology that
works across the areas described above. It's hard to make a priority,
but probably the first 3 are the ones where the group can make quicker
progress. It's also true that IoT and LISP-MN are probably the areas
with the greatest potential. Rather than making the charter exclusive, I
would try to leave the door open. We can use milestones to prioritize
the initial focus, but at least the WG has a way to later add work in
those areas.
Thanks,
Fabio
Yours,
Joel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
