Sounds good. But I didn't realize your use-case application needed predictive-RLOCs. So I assume you have a requirement to do RLOC handoffs faster than the mapping system. True?
Dino > On Sep 5, 2022, at 7:08 PM, Sharon Barkai <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree. > > Mobility, Anonymity, Predictive, AAA, VPN.. > All support private-mobile/mobile-edge issues. > > LISP basics: given an EID and XTR(s), allow client interaction with a scoped > set of EID objects, for a while. > > This solves the application server challenge of cloud to edge migration. > Sourcing specific EID dest from client solves low east west capacity between > fragmented edges (Gbps not Tbps). > > In general application routing helps leverage > low cost, high north south, low east west (compared to carrier rings and > cloud datacenter thick trees) .. of private-mobile-edge. LISP has the right > base structure, hope wg adopts such charter themes. > > > > --szb > Cell: +972.53.2470068 > WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 > >> On Sep 5, 2022, at 21:45, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think we should revisit the charter. >> >> I would also like to give priority for working group drafts that have >> existed with no apparent direction for many years. Those include: >> >> draft-ietf-lisp-mn (created 2009!)* >> draft-ietf-lisp-te (created 2012)* >> draft-ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport (created 2014) >> draft-ietf-lisp-yang (created 2015) >> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility (created 2016)* >> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity (created 2016) >> draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs (created 2016) >> draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth (created 2017) >> draft-ietf-lisp-vpn (created 2017)* >> >> I put a "*" in front of the ones I think should get priority. Note all the >> above documents are *not* use-case documents but protocol (mechanism) >> documents. >> >> And we need to get some closure on NAT-traversal. At least make >> draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal a working group document. >> >> Thanks, >> Dino >> >>> On Sep 5, 2022, at 3:14 AM, Sharon Barkai >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On a related Note. Wanted to bring up next move on the charter. I think we >>> can all agree that addressable naming like in lisp-nexagon H3 EIDs is part >>> of lisp application edge routing theme that is already active in the wg. >>> This is timely in light of private mobile, and mobile edge compute trends >>> and gaps. >>> >>> There are many reasons to factor compute from cloud to edge, latency, >>> capacity, regulation, but mostly cost. There is a very high centralization >>> tax in cloud vs edge as far as margins and energy/cooling bills that can be >>> saved. However its not easy to factor workloads from cloud to edge: >>> >>> 1) before any client API reaches an edge service it should be “TSA >>> Pre-checked” who what where this client is and that this specific edge >>> server can address this specific query right now. This is without >>> compromising client privacy and security as there is no wall of application >>> servers shielding clients from services. Neither is there east-west >>> pinball between fragmented micro services across edge location. LISP >>> routing per named logical addressing for both clients and services are very >>> applicable. >>> >>> 2) any edgefied service has to be able to encapsulate logic and state units >>> in portable manner, allow for elastic allocation across edge servers. >>> During peaks less units per server and more edge locations, and visa verse. >>> There is also need for quick recovery from locations (fragmanted) failures. >>> In this context what comes to mind for edge cloud migration is factoring to >>> edge anything digital-twin. In that sense nexagons are just one example of >>> road-tile twin. And again LISP named routing steering quickly between >>> failed or overflow locations by name location mapping and separation. >>> >>> Wonder what is the chairs, group thinking here. >>> >>> >>> --szb >>> Cell: +972.53.2470068 >>> WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 >>> >>>>> On Sep 5, 2022, at 12:21, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> This call for adoption was open for a while now and there were several >>>> emails in support of the adoption. >>>> >>>> As such, there is a clear consensus in adopting this document. >>>> >>>> The authors are invited to submit a new version of the document renamed as >>>> WG item. >>>> >>>> Thanks to all people that expressed their opinion. >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> >>>> L. >>>> On 5 Aug 2022 at 17:22 +0200, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]>, wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> The authors of the lisp-name-encoding draft (see below) have requested >>>>> working group adoption for this document. >>>>> >>>>> This email starts a three weeks call for working group adoption of this >>>>> document. >>>>> >>>>> Please respond, positively or negatively. Silence does NOT mean consent. >>>>> >>>>> Please include explanation / motivation / reasoning for your view. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Luigi & Joel >>>>> >>>>>> On 24 Jul 2022, at 17:17, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We have made changes to -15 to address Joel's comments. Thanks to Marc >>>>>> and Joel for their participation and cooperation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to, at this time, request for this draft to be a working >>>>>> group document. I will present the status and changes to -15 at the LISP >>>>>> WG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Dino >>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15.txt >>>>>>> Date: July 24, 2022 at 8:15:25 AM PDT >>>>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>>>> directories. >>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of >>>>>>> the IETF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title : LISP Distinguished Name Encoding >>>>>>> Author : Dino Farinacci >>>>>>> Filename : draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15.txt >>>>>>> Pages : 9 >>>>>>> Date : 2022-07-24 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Abstract: >>>>>>> This draft defines how to use the AFI=17 Distinguished Names in LISP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is also an htmlized version available at: >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at >>>>>>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
