On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
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
Working Group of the IETF.
Just to ask the first question here... if it's
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block'
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a
this post a while back
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg04000.html
start copy
From: Luigi Iannone ggx at gigix.net
To: Roger Jørgensen rogerj at gmail.com
Cc: ietf at ietf.org, lisp at ietf.org
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:22:50 +0100
snip
I have to ask, who can request
There might be one missunderstanding of my original post:
* set aside one /16 for each RIR
* out of this /16 _only_ upto /26 split into /32 (64 for each RIR
region) can be can be handed out and announced into the global routing
table. If someone need something more than /32 they should
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Actually Luigi, in my personal opinion:
1) It is not our job or our requirement to involve the RIRs. It is our job
to come up with what we think LISP and the Internet need for EID allocation.
2) I would be really
Sender: lisp-boun...@ietf.org
On-Behalf-Of: rog...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt
Message-Id: cakfn1sfbmuobjnchh0+ihnni8k3eckydr69onfiq9pjovp+...@mail.gmail.com
Recipient: buxt...@cintas.com
---BeginMessage---
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:44 PM,
Sender: lisp-boun...@ietf.org
On-Behalf-Of: rog...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt
Message-Id: cakfn1sf1q0w_tg6dknwz5ggmpngy1wni0ekrdepcb-zcmgd...@mail.gmail.com
Recipient: buxt...@cintas.com
---BeginMessage---
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM,
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:04 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
I agree that costs shouldn't be dictated. More specifically, I don't think
the draft should get into how the service is funded other than to say
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
snip
1) We need to be clear about which LCAFs can be used as EIDs, which as RLOC,
and which as both.
If we're not clear it will lead to confusing later on, or no
deployment because no one know what todo. Another
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Dino Farinacci farina...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Noel,
there's certainly no intention of keeping this out of the LISP WG, since
this is not part of the charter we just thought an individual submission was
more appropriate.
We just started from the very
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
Hi, I was asked to kill all uses of the term DFZ in the Intro document, and
was advised to replace it with the term Internet core. However, DFZ is used
a _lot_, and having Internet core really gets clunky after about
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Rene Bartsch i...@bartschnet.de wrote:
Am 2013-10-31 16:32, schrieb j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu:
I am fairly sure that this is outside the scope of this WG. I'm not sure
where
is; perhaps someone who's more familiar with the current broad scope of
IETF
efforts
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
Hi,
I want to ask everyone on the list: Which facts prevent a scaling experiment
with the aim of global production state? In my opinion a /16-EID-prefix is
perfect for that goal.
The problem is in that what you
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Terry Manderson
terry.mander...@icann.org wrote:
In Vancouver the chairs received a request for the following document to be
adopted as a WG item.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iannone-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03
Here starts a 14 day call for adoption, this
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Damien Saucez damien.sau...@gmail.com
I would have a question, if there is capability, it means that there is
a possibility to meet no capability so in this case what is replied?
...
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Luigi Iannone g...@gigix.net wrote:
snip
Do you folks think this is OK?
Yes it's ok for me.
--
Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
Not sure where to start but here we go.
In short - on the background of that draft, I think it's quite respect
less what you have gone and done. That's how _I_ see it.
On the technical part, IPSec is nothing new, but I'm not going to
comment on that.
Some months ago I contacted Dino and
I support this document
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
The draft LISP EID Block has been revised to reflect the WG discussion and
comments received.
This starts a last call for this document, ending April 4, 2014.
Please review thisdocument and
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
Hi Roger,
Or asked more explicitly, can the level of security claimed by the threats
document be achieved without implementing the protocol extensions described
in lisp-sec and lisp-crypto?
I've been pondering on
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Luigi Iannone g...@gigix.net wrote:
Hi All,
After the final re-wording of the EID Block Management Guidelines document,
with the submission of the -03 version
[http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-03.txt],
the work seems done and no further
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> This is a call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast.
> Please speak up if you support or oppose adoption of this document. It has
> been presented multiple times to the working group, generally
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> For your review. Thank you.
haven't yet got into the details of it, but if it does what the title say we got
- privacy
- integrity
- crypt
- scalability
... what are we missing in LISP now?
(except implementation from
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> This document describes a set of guidelines that will be used
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The chairs received a request for the following document to be
> adopted as a WG item:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6830bis/
>
> Here starts a 14 day call for adoption, this call
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Manish Kumar wrote:
> I guess I did mention this before but just in case that was missed - the
> idea of a separate confidentiality mechanism for each encapsulation/overlay
> protocol when these are all IP based does seem a bit
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> feedback for this last call has been quite low. For this reason we decide to
> extend the last call for another two weeks, ending December 16th.
>
> Please state your opinion on whether this document is ready for
26 matches
Mail list logo