Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document
Agree, OAM has much bigger scope than traceroute, so naming it with 'traceroute considerations' makes more sense. Thanks, Prakash -Original Message- From: lisp On Behalf Of Fabio Maino (fmaino) Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:06 AM To: lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document I suggest "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute" that puts a little less emphasis on mobility. I second Luigi's call to get done with this document and move on. Thanks, Fabio On 3/19/18 4:25 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, > > during today f2f meeting concern has been expressed about the name to use for > the document that will collect what is neither data-plane nor control-plane. > > The name OAM was found not accurate because the document will not cover all > of what is normally in a OAM document. > > The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute > considerations”. > > The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection > or you have a better name to suggest. > > Please send an email by the end of the week. > > Thanks > > Jole and Luigi > ___ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10.txt
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 : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Authors : Vince Fuller Dino Farinacci Albert Cabellos Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10.txt Pages : 48 Date: 2018-03-21 Abstract: This document describes the Control-Plane and Mapping Service for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), implemented by two new types of LISP-speaking devices -- the LISP Map-Resolver and LISP Map-Server -- that provides a simplified "front end" for one or more Endpoint ID to Routing Locator mapping databases. By using this Control-Plane service interface and communicating with Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different database designs. Since these devices implement the "edge" of the LISP Control-Plane infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable Internet end sites, and comprising the bulk of LISP-speaking devices, reducing their implementation and operational complexity should also reduce the overall cost and effort of deploying LISP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document
I suggest "Considerations on LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute" that puts a little less emphasis on mobility. I second Luigi's call to get done with this document and move on. Thanks, Fabio On 3/19/18 4:25 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: Hi All, during today f2f meeting concern has been expressed about the name to use for the document that will collect what is neither data-plane nor control-plane. The name OAM was found not accurate because the document will not cover all of what is normally in a OAM document. The suggested name is “LISP Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations”. The chairs would like to hear from the mailing list if there is any objection or you have a better name to suggest. Please send an email by the end of the week. Thanks Jole and Luigi ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document
Ack. On 2018-03-21, 8:37 AM, "Luigi Iannone" wrote: > > The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the benefit. > This is also consuming my patience. During f2f meeting decision has been made. The last question was the name and we opened for suggestion from the mailing list. Let’s not start again in endless discussion. By Friday we settle for a name and we move on AS DECIDED. Not opening again for any change that will trigger discussion. We are close to finish this part of the work, so let’s do it. L. ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR
I will post at noon GMT if there are no objections. Dino > On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) > wrote: > > I think the new text is much better, unambiguous and addresses all concerns. > > Thanks Dino, > > -v > >> On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:29 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> >>> Could I not do the above even if the EID-prefix DID NOT EXIST? Or are we >>> restricting any application of policy only to LISP EID-prefixes, and not to >>> non-LISP prefixes? >> >> No, it would be either. >> >>> The map-replies suggested in the new text would effectively be NMRs, >>> correct? i.e. Map-replies with empty locator sets and the ACT bits set. >> >> The definition of a Negative Map-Reply is one with a empty RLOC-set. I will >> make that more clear in the definition and the description on how to return >> different actions. >> >>> If that is the intent, maybe we need to revise the definitions for NMR and >>> ACT as I think right now there is some inconsistency/contradiction: >>> >>> a) NMR definition - Issued in response to queries only for EIDs that DO NOT >>> EXIST >>> b) ACT bits specification - for use in NMRs ONLY >>> c) New text describing how the ACT bits are used to specify forwarding >>> behavior for EIDs that DO EXIST >> >> Agree 100%. See new diff file. >> >>> So NMRs are exclusive to non-existent or non-registered EIDs (a) and ACT >>> bits are exclusive to NMRs (b). Yet (c) implies that NMRs will be used for >>> EIDs that DO EXIST. So (c) contradicts (a). >> >> No, not really. “Exist” is too general a term. We should say “not >> registered”. >> >> Let me know if new text is better. >> >> Thanks, >> Dino >> >> > ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 18:13, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > I think the problem is that RFC6830bis has too narrow a definition of > “data-plane”. I believe you think it as the sole purpose of forwarding data > packets. I view it as the “nodes that make up the data-plane” should be part > of that. > > Having said that, the Deployment section is saying where xTRs go and why. The > Mobility section is saying where EIDs and RLOCs are and off often the can > change. Both of these sections has nothing to do with control-plane and hence > they shouldn’t go in RFC6833bis but should not go into a OAM document either. > > The Traceroute section is probably the only section that should go in a > document titled “OAM”. But what is the cost of putting just this section in a > document? > p.s. I will not answer this part of the email because we are far over the discussion and I don’t want to open it again. Let move on as planned. ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document
> > The cost and time we have spent on this topic has already exceeded the > benefit. > This is also consuming my patience. During f2f meeting decision has been made. The last question was the name and we opened for suggestion from the mailing list. Let’s not start again in endless discussion. By Friday we settle for a name and we move on AS DECIDED. Not opening again for any change that will trigger discussion. We are close to finish this part of the work, so let’s do it. L. ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] Review 6833bis-08 - General and NMR
I think the new text is much better, unambiguous and addresses all concerns. Thanks Dino, -v > On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:29 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> Could I not do the above even if the EID-prefix DID NOT EXIST? Or are we >> restricting any application of policy only to LISP EID-prefixes, and not to >> non-LISP prefixes? > > No, it would be either. > >> The map-replies suggested in the new text would effectively be NMRs, >> correct? i.e. Map-replies with empty locator sets and the ACT bits set. > > The definition of a Negative Map-Reply is one with a empty RLOC-set. I will > make that more clear in the definition and the description on how to return > different actions. > >> If that is the intent, maybe we need to revise the definitions for NMR and >> ACT as I think right now there is some inconsistency/contradiction: >> >> a) NMR definition - Issued in response to queries only for EIDs that DO NOT >> EXIST >> b) ACT bits specification - for use in NMRs ONLY >> c) New text describing how the ACT bits are used to specify forwarding >> behavior for EIDs that DO EXIST > > Agree 100%. See new diff file. > >> So NMRs are exclusive to non-existent or non-registered EIDs (a) and ACT >> bits are exclusive to NMRs (b). Yet (c) implies that NMRs will be used for >> EIDs that DO EXIST. So (c) contradicts (a). > > No, not really. “Exist” is too general a term. We should say “not > registered”. > > Let me know if new text is better. > > Thanks, > Dino > > ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
