> Dino,
> Back then Albert Lopez, Vina and others invested quite some time addressing
> in draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal a lot of corner cases that were coming
> from mobiity.
>
> Before we move forward with a NAT document we should make sure we either
> explicitly leave out those use
Dino,
Back then Albert Lopez, Vina and others invested quite some time addressing in
draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal a lot of corner cases that were coming from
mobiity.
Before we move forward with a NAT document we should make sure we either
explicitly leave out those use cases, or address
Please include/keep draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity as a work item
for moving forward, we are currently working on it.
Thanks,
Prakash
From: lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:46 AM
To: "lisp@ietf.org list"
Cc: "lisp-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject:
Yes, we definitely plan to move “draft-ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport”
forward.
It fits well the “Alternative Mapping System Design” (alternative transports)
part of the charter.
From: lisp on behalf of Balaji Pitta Venkatachalapathy
(bvenkata)
Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at
draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat proposes an implemented solution for the
problem.
Dino
> On Mar 21, 2023, at 6:25 AM, Albert López wrote:
>
> On 14/3/23 10:46, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>> LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document
>
> Here we have the problem of handovers between
On 14/3/23 10:46, Luigi Iannone wrote:
LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document
Here we have the problem of handovers between RTRs. Some time ago I
proposed a possible solution but I believe we need to think a little
more to find a more optimal solution.
Albert López
> LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one
Agree. This is very high on the TODO list.
Alberto
From: Luigi Iannone
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 10:46 AM
To: lisp@ietf.org list
Cc: lisp-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items currently
> They can still be experimental if WG is willing to publishing them. The
> charter may include a security/privacy work item and these documents would be
> covered.
Right - agree.
Dino
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
>> PPE- should we consider predictive rlocs draft as well? It covers predictive
>> mobility.
Yes - it covers a more efficient mobility. Good point - I missed that.
Dino
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
Hi Luigi, Dino
See below PPE
Thanks
Padma
> On Mar 15, 2023, at 02:03, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>
> Hi Dino,
>
>>> On 14 Mar 2023, at 20:35, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>
>>> LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything
>>> should we enlarge the scope?
>>
>>
Hi Dino,
> On 14 Mar 2023, at 20:35, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>
>> LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything
>> should we enlarge the scope?
>
> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility as well.
Right. We can have a general discussion about mobility and what kind of
> LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything
> should we enlarge the scope?
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility as well.
> LISP Yang Model: We are pretty close to finish this one
> LISP NAT Traversal: we have a candidate document
And VPNs are in charter and used quite a
Hi LISP WG,
As for the subject, this email starts the discussion about: Promised work item:
work items currently in the charter but not finished
There are a bunch of unfinished WG drafts promised in the charter, namely:
LISP Mobility: candidate document LISP-MN but does not solve everything
13 matches
Mail list logo
