[Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Folks, The IESG would like to know whether people believe that we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary. Here are the current facts on the ground: o We have fairly mature set of core drafts o There are a number of other (non-core) LISP drafts o Significant global deployment is underway o We have 2 (or more) implementations o We have been discussing a draft charter (see update below) The question is that I would like folks to respond to is Should a WG be formed based on the draft agenda (see below), or should we have another BOF? Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can close on these administrative issues. Thanks, Dave -- LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) Last Modified: 2009-01-20 Chair(s): TBD Internet Area Director(s): TBD Routing Area Advisor: TBD Secretary(ies): TBD Mailing Lists: General Discussion: l...@ietf.org Description of Working Group: LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the BOF is to form a working group whose charter (see below) is to work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. The working group will encourage and support interoperable LISP implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate mapping systems. The Working Group may also create EID-prefix assignment guidelines for RIRs, as well as security profiles for the ALT (presumably using technology developed in the SIDR working group). Goals and Milestones: Mar 2010 Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Allocation and Routing of both EIDs and RLOCs to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping System to the IESG for Experimental. July 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for Experimental. Aug 2010 Re-charter or close. Internet-Drafts: draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt Request For Comments: None References -- [0] Meyer, D. et. al., Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing, RFC 4984. [1] Farinacci, D. et. al., Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt. [2] Fuller, V., et. al., LISP Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT), draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt [3] Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, OpenLISP Implementation Report, draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt. [4] Lewis, D., et. al., Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6, draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt. [5] Mathy, L., et. al., LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map identifiers onto locators, draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt. [6] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, LISP for Multicast Environments, draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Dave, Can you give a little more background on these two points, for those who aren't following things that closely: o Significant global deployment is underway o We have 2 (or more) implementations What's the nature of the deployment, and am I correct in thinking that only one of the implementations is from a core router vendor? Those questions being asked and answered, I don't personally see that another BOF is called for. The IESG just has to make its normal assessment of whether the support is broad enough. Thanks Brian ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Brian,
Can you give a little more background on these two points,
for those who aren't following things that closely:
o Significant global deployment is underway
Check http://www.lisp4.net (IPv4) or http://www.lisp6.net
(IPv6). There's a schematic of the global network
there. Basically we're trying to get the RIRs to be at
the topic level; you'll note that we have RIPE, ARIN, a
LACNIC proxy (UY), and are working with the APNIC
folks. Below that, we're trying to do a kind of regional
(contential) aggregation, etc. There are roughly 30
routers deployed, and 5 or 6 are in the pipeline.
In addition, there are a growing number of hosts behind
the xTRs (i.e., in EID space, either 153.16/16 or
2610:D0:/32), scattered around the planet. For example,
the NTT US folks have put up http://lisp4.ameri.ca (v4
only), http://lisp6.ameri.ca (v6 only) or
http://lisp.ameri.ca (dual stack).
BTW, if you reach www.lisp{4,6}.net (or the mirrors on
lispX.ameri.ca) from outside the LISP world, then you are
using the Proxy Tunnel Router (PTR) technology described
in draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt (note that the
draft has timed out; we'll have an update today or
tomorrow, and let me know if you need a copy of -01.txt).
If you look at http:/www.translate.lisp4.net, you're
using the other interworking technique, LISP translation
(i.e., LISP NAT).
o We have 2 (or more) implementations
What's the nature of the deployment,
Answered above, I think. Let me know if you have other
questions.
and am I correct in thinking that only one of the
implementations is from a core router vendor?
Sort or. We of course have Dino's implementation. There
is also other ongoing LISP work in IOS (still
evolving). I don't know about other vendors.
You can also find OpenLISP (an open source freebsd LISP
implementation) at http://gforge.info.ucl.ac.be/projects/openlisp.
We are also actively looking at a Linux OpenLISP port.
Those questions being asked and answered, I don't personally
see that another BOF is called for. The IESG just has to make its
normal assessment of whether the support is broad enough.
Thanks for your comments Brian. Very helpful.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Hi, I am sorry if I'm a bit lost here. Perhaps I just haven't paid enough attention. Did the RRG conclude and decide to take LISP or is this a parallel activity? If this is a parallel activity what is the intended connection to the RRG work? Sorry for the perhaps simple questions and thanks for the answers in advance! Cheers, Jonne. On 1/20/09 9:07 PM, ext David Meyer d...@1-4-5.net wrote: Folks, The IESG would like to know whether people believe that we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary. Here are the current facts on the ground: o We have fairly mature set of core drafts o There are a number of other (non-core) LISP drafts o Significant global deployment is underway o We have 2 (or more) implementations o We have been discussing a draft charter (see update below) The question is that I would like folks to respond to is Should a WG be formed based on the draft agenda (see below), or should we have another BOF? Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can close on these administrative issues. Thanks, Dave -- LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) Last Modified: 2009-01-20 Chair(s): TBD Internet Area Director(s): TBD Routing Area Advisor: TBD Secretary(ies): TBD Mailing Lists: General Discussion: l...@ietf.org Description of Working Group: LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that respond to the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the BOF is to form a working group whose charter (see below) is to work on the design on the LISP base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system [2], LISP Interworking [4] and LISP multicast [6]. The working group will encourage and support interoperable LISP implementations as well as defining requirements for alternate mapping systems. The Working Group may also create EID-prefix assignment guidelines for RIRs, as well as security profiles for the ALT (presumably using technology developed in the SIDR working group). Goals and Milestones: Mar 2010 Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for Experimental. Mar 2010 Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Allocation and Routing of both EIDs and RLOCs to the IESG for Experimental. June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping System to the IESG for Experimental. July 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for Experimental. Aug 2010 Re-charter or close. Internet-Drafts: draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt Request For Comments: None References -- [0] Meyer, D. et. al., Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing, RFC 4984. [1] Farinacci, D. et. al., Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt. [2] Fuller, V., et. al., LISP Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT), draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt [3] Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, OpenLISP Implementation Report, draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt. [4] Lewis, D., et. al., Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6, draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt. [5] Mathy, L., et. al., LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map identifiers onto locators, draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt. [6] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, LISP for Multicast Environments, draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt. ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Siemens Networks Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: jonne.soini...@nsn.com ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
[Int-area] IETF-74 BOF requests
BOF requests for the upcoming meeting are listed in http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart I would like to ask for a couple of things. First, are we missing something? If yes, its about time you send the ADs mail... Second, take a look at the proposals and provide feedback either to us or to the organizers. I'll note that the various efforts are in various stages, some in very, very early form. Please do not shoot the ideas down just yet; at this point the more useful feedback is suggestions on what direction these efforts should be taken to. Or YOUR participation in the effort to move it to that right direction or write that missing document. Jari ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
I have a few personal comments on the charter. In the first BOF we had an experiment aspect in the charter as well. The new charter is pure protocol specification. I am actually interested in two outputs from the potential WG: First, the protocol specifications themselves will be useful for the folks building Lisp prototypes. Second, use of the protocols allows everyone to understand the implications of this technology. Some of the effects of Lisp will also be similar in other, alternative designs. For instance, is the delay or loss of some initial packets a real-world problem or not? I would like the WG to first write a list of useful experiments and then later publish the results. I think the work on EID allocation guidelines for RIRs is premature at this stage. It would be cool to see a document on deployment incentives or an evolution plan, similar to what Dan Jen presented in the last RRG meeting. I don't know if you can get someone to write one. The charter is missing an introductory paragraph that explains how this fits to the larger picture (such as the RRG). It probably also needs to be clearer about what's out of scope. Jari ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Meyer wrote: ... It would likely be possible to develop a list of questions (such as the one you mention), but experimental design should not, IMO, be a part of this WG. It is not only that the scope of potentially useful experiments is effectively unbounded (I can think of a lot of things), but also that building the instrument (configuration) that actually measures the outcome of the experiment will be in many cases non-trivial. My point is that your statement that you would like the WG to first write a list of useful experiments and then later publish the results. is too broadly scoped. I see you gave one example, the effect of delay or packet drop...; actually we need a more tightly scoped description even than that to build an experimental design (e.g., effect on what, in what topology, etc.). You get my point. If the purpose of the WG is to document the protocols currently in experimental use in a group in the IETF, no BOF is needed and they seem ready to proceed. If the purpose of the WG is experiments, then this work clearly belongs back on the IRTF, which is not the goal AFAICT (I bring this up only to reinforce David's view that experiments are out of scope). Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl2cvQACgkQE5f5cImnZrttBACcCTM2LwOfDco30GH/YCHIMkXE 0qkAnRm4p5HwbH4iFChTokcH19sC7Stt =a2fa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
On 2009-01-21 13:57, Joe Touch wrote: ... If the purpose of the WG is experiments, then this work clearly belongs back on the IRTF, which is not the goal AFAICT (I bring this up only to reinforce David's view that experiments are out of scope). I'm guessing that Jari's comment is because of the notion that documents published as Experimental RFCs should include (unless it's totally obvious) some discussion of how their success or failure will be evaluated. That doesn't IMHO mean that the WG is actually responsible for the experiment. It's difficult in this case because the goal is to make the Internet scale much bigger than it is today, and that would be quite an experiment ;-) Brian ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] [lisp] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Jari, But back to the proposal. In particular, I would like to know how people feel about this work being ready for an (Experimental) IETF WG, what the scope should be, whether the charter is reasonable. And if not, what would make it so. There are reasonably stable specs that people can code to, there is code, there is a running network, there is a community of interest (myself included), and there are some interesting questions to answer still (like liveness and EID/locator update) that are ripe community involvement. So yes, I think it would be useful to provide a forum for the community to discuss and evolve this work. Eliot ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
