Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04: Abstain
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 https://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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-impact/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The opening of this draft "The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three principles to improve the scalability properties of Internet routing: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. The main goal of LISP is to make the routing infrastructure more scalable by reducing the number of prefixes announced in the Default Free Zone (DFZ)." is targeted at solving the Internet scalability issue for Internet routing. While the document goes into some details about rather large unknowns and issues observed, it does not have any indications or caveats up front that this is still experimental work - certainly as far as solving this Internet-scale problem. At a minimum, I think there need to be clear caveats on the experimental nature, on the aspects still to be understood, and on the complexity and concerns around the operational and security aspects. While LISP is a really neat idea and it's good to see how far work and research on it has progressed, this document reads much more like marketing than something discussing the engineering and operational trade-offs. 1) There is no discussion of what the "mapping system" is and I think that some of the discussion is assuming the use of BGP, but it's a bit hard to tell. At a minimum, it'd be good to clarify whether an Internet-scale deployment must use the same mapping system and what the trade-offs there are. 2) In Sec 4.1, "When there are several RLOCs, the ITR selects the one with the highest priority and sends the encapsulated packet to this RLOC. If several such RLOCs exist, then the traffic is balanced proportionally to their weight among the RLOCs with the lowest priority value." It is unclear whether the "highest priority" means the lowest priority value. Please clarify because it incorrectly sounds like the highest priority RLOC is picked - unless there are multiple in which case load-balancing among the lowest priority value RLOCs is done. 3) Sec 5.1 "Proxies cause what is referred to as path stretch and make troubleshooting harder." This doesn't actually describe what path stretch is in any way. I can guess from the name, but that's not sufficient. 4) In Sec 5.2: "Deployment in the beta network has shown that LISP+ALT ([RFC6836], [CCR13]) was not easy to maintain and control, which explains the migration to LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]" Can you give a reference or indicate what the benefits of DDT are as compared to ALT in this context? _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
