Hi Fabio, > On 14 Oct 2015, at 17:27, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/14/15 1:23 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi Fabio, >> >> thanks for the feedback. >> Are you saying that the scope of the proposed chart is too large? > > No, I think the scope is very appropriate. I was just suggesting that we use > those two use cases to drive the design decisions. > > There are clearly many more use cases that a LISP overlay can be used for, > but in my opinion those two are well understood and will help focusing the > group on the protocol work that you have identified. I selected those two, > and articulated them in that way, exactly because they can cover the whole > scope of the outlined work. > > If we include those two use cases in the charter, probably it should also > mention that those are not the only ones, but are used to drive the design. >
I kind of confused here. You agree that there is the right scope in the proposed charter but that is lacking use-cases. I would prefer having a charter that states what we are working on, not where our work can/will be applied. If people are interested in use-cases, it is possible to add a use-case document where we document where the work can be used. Would people be happy with such type of solution? >> >> From what I see in your mail I would say that the proposed charter covers >> all of your work items (with the exception of the programmatic northbound >> access to the mapping). > > Yes. I think the SDN angle is very important for an overlay, and may drive > very relevant components of the architecture. The text you posted does refers > to YANG modeling, that is one component of programmability, but I would like > to see this requirement more explicit, particularly for the mapping system. > > I believe LISP, with the clean separation of the forwarding function provided > by the mapping system, can play a key role in controller-based SDN > applications. Again, it's not the only way to use LISP, but I think it's an > opportunity that the WG should pick up. > > I would prefer that in the charter we refer only to IETF work. This means avoiding acronyms like SDN. First because it is a I_R_TF work, second because SDN way too large. It means different things for different people, so I am unsure on whether it helps in defining a clear scope for our work. YANG is different, because it is clearly an IETF effort and is something that we have anyway to consider. Yet, you can always propose some text to help in give a better scope to the proposed charter. ciao L. > > Thanks, > Fabio > > > >> Or I am misunderstanding your comment? >> >> ciao >> >> L. >> >> >>> On 13 Oct 2015, at 23:53, 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
