On 10/15/15 7:10 AM, Albert Cabellos wrote:
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…)
I think it might be interesting to explore the options the we might have
here. While we expand the scope of LISP beyond mapping EID to RLOCs (see
the LISP/NSH draft as an example), we'll indeed have to deal with a
bunch of new LCAF types. A language might help to keep focus on the
semantic, rather than on the syntax of allocating bits. I see no harm
in including this work with the goal to write an experimental RFC.
Fabio
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
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
