Hi Luigi Please see my comments inline:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: [snip] > Having design guidelines does not forcedly mean having a programmatic > language approach. Right? > > In your opinion could well defined guidelines (not language) be added to the > current LCAF document? I am unsure if we can do this without ending up reproducing some sort of language, we´ll start by defining scalar data-types, then complex data-types (combinations of scalars), then data-structures, then encoding mechanisms for each scalar and each data-structure and so on. This could be as simple as defining an encoding mechanisms for YANG (XMLBIN with some sort of compression). I am not stating that we should go this precise way, what I am stating is that LCAF is rigid and, if a new use-case is not defined as an LCAF, it can´t be deployed in a standard way. A language could solve this issue and make the LISP control plane truly flexible. > >> to define new ones. A flexible language with a clear >> syntax would ease deployment of new use-cases both at the data and >> control plane. > > How much relevant and with what priority is this for the WG? ( _NOTE_ this > question is for the whole WG not just for Albert…) > me too :) Albert >> Maybe this could be done as experimental (not >> standard). > > _if_ the WG decides to take on this work it would very reasonable to go for > experimental. > > ciao > > L. > > >> >> Albert >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Joel, Luigi, >>> thanks for taking a stab at this one. >>> >>> I think it covers the relevant aspects that I would like to see the WG to >>> focus on. >>> >>> As discussed in the use case thread, I would suggest that the draft should >>> mention a very small set of use cases that we can use to drive the design >>> decisions. I think that we can possibly cover all of the protocol aspects >>> you describe if we take the following two use cases: >>> 1) LISP-based programmable L2/L3 VPNs with extensions to support the >>> following services: >>> - encryption >>> - programmatic northbound access to the mapping and to xTR configuration >>> - SFC/NFV >>> - VPN termination on mobile nodes >>> 2) LISP-based programmable L2/L3 VPNs for DC applications >>> >>> I think these two will give a good scope to the WG work and, without >>> resorting to more exotic use cases, reinforce the focus on the use of LISP >>> as an overlay technology. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Fabio >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/13/15 1:30 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> in the past weeks (and months) there was a fruitful discussion that took >>>> place on the mailing list (and also in Prague) concerning >>>> the new charter to be adopted by our WG. Thanks for this effort. >>>> >>>> Beside this discussion we had proposals from WG members as well as >>>> discussion with our AD about what is practical and reasonable. >>>> Hereafter you can find the result: a draft of the new proposed charter. >>>> >>>> This does not mean that discussion is over, rather that we reached a first >>>> consistent milestone for further discussion. >>>> Discussion ideally culminating in our meeting in Japan. >>>> >>>> So please have look and send your thoughts and feedback to the mailing >>>> list. >>>> >>>> Joel and Luigi >>>> >>>> %—————————————————————————————————————————————————% >>>> The LISP WG has completed the first set of Experimental RFCs >>>> describing the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP supports >>>> a routing architecture which decouples the routing locators and >>>> identifiers, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the routing locator >>>> space and providing persistent identifiers in the identifier space. >>>> LISP requires no changes to end-systems or to routers that do not >>>> directly participate in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an >>>> incrementally deployable protocol. The scope of the LISP >>>> technology is recognized to range from programmable overlays, >>>> at Layer 2 as well as at Layer 3, including NAT traversal, and >>>> supporting mobility as a general feature, independently of whether >>>> it is a mobile user or a migrating VM, hence being applicable in both >>>> Data Centers and public Internet environments. >>>> >>>> The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP base protocol >>>> with the main objective to develop a standard solution based on the >>>> completed Experimental RFCs and the experience gained from early >>>> deployments. >>>> This work will include reviewing the existing set of Experimental RFCs >>>> and doing the necessary enhancements to support a base set of >>>> standards track RFCs. The group will review the current set of Working >>>> Group documents to identify potential standards-track documents and >>>> do the necessary enhancements to support standards-track. It is >>>> recognized that some of the work will continue on the experimental track, >>>> though the group is encouraged to move the documents to standards >>>> track in support of network use, whereas the work previously was >>>> scoped to research studies. >>>> >>>> Beside this main focus, the LISP WG may work on the following items: >>>> >>>> • NAT-Traversal >>>> • Mobility >>>> • Data-Plane Encryption >>>> • Multicast: Support for overlay multicast by means of replication >>>> as well as interfacing with existing underlay multicast support. >>>> • YANG Data models for management of LISP. >>>> • Multi-protocol support: Specifying the required extensions to >>>> support >>>> multi-protocol encapsulation (e.g., L2 or NSH – Network Service >>>> Headers). Rather than developing new encapsulations, the work will >>>> aim at using existing well-established encapsulations or emerging >>>> from other Working Groups such as NVO3 and SFC. >>>> • Alternative Mapping System Design: When extending LISP to support >>>> new protocols,it may be also necessary to develop the related >>>> mapping >>>> function extensions to operate LISP map-assisted networks (which >>>> might include Hierarchical Pull, Publish/Subscribe, or Push models >>>> and related security extensions). >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
