Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Dave, Unless we're planning to scuttle the Internet and start from scratch, IMHO it is inevitable that we will eventually need some form of map-and-encaps. I don't believe that the solution necessarily has to be LISP, but that is not intending to make any statement wrt what you are trying to accomplish here. Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com ___ 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 aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Dave, The task consisting in discovering by experimentation architectural fit (wrt initial objectives) and complement understanding wrt known challenges (mapping, caching, loc.reachability, impact on traffic spatio-temporal properties) is very different in nature than ensuring interoperability among protocols, minimize operational impact, and facilitate integration/deployability - so requiring different type of efforts with different timelines. As a matter of fact, both types of activities are still required imho. So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should happen in the context of a BoF. Thanks, -dimitri. -Original Message- From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Meyer Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:08 PM To: routing-discuss...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org Cc: l...@ietf.org Subject: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether aWG 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. ___ 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 aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should happen in the context of a BoF. I missed the part where anyone said that we should *exclusively* concentrate on LISP. Where/when did that happen? ___ 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 aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Eliot: -Original Message- From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:03 PM To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri Cc: David Meyer; routing-discuss...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should happen in the context of a BoF. I missed the part where anyone said that we should *exclusively* concentrate on LISP. Where/when did that happen? All items in the charter - see below - are exclusively oriented toward LISP protocols implementation specifics, and interworking: /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. thanks, -dimitri. ___ 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 aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
On 1/21/09 2:12 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: All items in the charter - see below - are exclusively oriented toward LISP protocols implementation specifics, and interworking: Right. This is a LISP WG. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating another WG, assuming the work warrants it. And again, the output is experimental docs. No standardization choices are being made. ___ 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 aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP
Dimitri, The task consisting in discovering by experimentation architectural fit (wrt initial objectives) and complement understanding wrt known challenges (mapping, caching, loc.reachability, impact on traffic spatio-temporal properties) is very different in nature than ensuring interoperability among protocols, minimize operational impact, and facilitate integration/deployability - so requiring different type of efforts with different timelines. As a matter of fact, both types of activities are still required imho. So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should happen in the context of a BoF. The purpose of this WG would be to take the *LISP* documents to EXPERIMENTAL. That is what I had in mind when I wrote the charter, and I believe that it is pretty clear on this point. That is not to say it the charter can't be further tightened (I'm sure it can). A you know, WGs need to be tightly focused, especially in the case of protocol groups. I'll grant you that my experience with WGs in the OPs area are somewhat more open-ended (at least mine have been), but it seems unlikely that an IETF WG could successfully produce both tight protocol specs and broad architectural surveys and analyzes. In fact, I can't think of a case in which this has been done in the IETF (perhaps there is one, but it doesn't readily come to mind). Add to that that LISP is clearly in an engineering and deployment phase, coupled with the fact that producing engineering specs what the IETF is good at (well, that is the IETF does), and one sees that finishing up the LISP specs in the IETF seems only natural. That said, it is a fine thing for the RRG to continue to do what its doing, and further, the document you've been describing on the RRG list should continue to progress (IMO of course). In fact, these activities are completely complementary. So keep up the good work. Just one point on your argument: So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should happen in the context of a BoF. It would seem that one could apply the same argument to SHIM6, HIP, SCTP, and several other protocols that have been or are being standardized. So my question to you is: (i).Given your argument above, do you believe that say, the SHIM6 WG should not have been chartered (or perhaps that the SIGTRAN WG, which produced RFCs 4960 and 3286) should not have been chartered? Clearly they did not have such an analysis, or we wouldn't be talking about doing it now (and again, that is not to say there isn't a ton of literature on loc/id split). (ii). If on the other hand you believe that, say SHIM6 should have been chartered, the question is why (again, given your argument above)? Note that I'm not taking a stand on this either way. Rather, I'm just following the logic of your argument. Dave signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
