Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 23:33 UTC
Return-Path: <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C3D1A0163; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:33:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0lpOTxYI2Kzj; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22a.google.com (mail-ig0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 609151A0143; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l13so1244005iga.1; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZCM3k6EkE0qhy6JM8uoApjA/2FIxAfuqC12BUltxqOY=; b=bdUdq+6drC47sKDYVdzPDoAhVsE+4L6VKBpuuYdbQkThGV4n9HGPIELgBB5NANwfqq n+vC2U3FEhI4RS8lFhdLCYGWDbyl8yNcmuy82UPhs3y7rn3OGOEMKrk+TSKCZvQ6Jq4/ YGfY83iOisB5H+4KQrjm9X7/rQgcY2wUytaupv9Y4uw1NHaEIkhB4k+PY0NhHCEPaADo YzosLTD7ROMwQbzvyxY8vkaYBaxzHWBQOz3L4gEbOfo3YH4kPruxr0amCwTT9bYyhqax eWl2R3D929XqeGsOVtOEeyifkPzU2NhWvtyQVOi72M4ELt6vUVsPWULhREWOYIKXS+qb ElXg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.107.36 with SMTP id gz4mr547655igb.25.1423697579461; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.8.36 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936363FBB@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936362ABB@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <54DA982D.60200@joelhalpern.com> <B95AA6CA-22D6-4B36-9F7D-09CA46EB5E12@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936363FBB@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:32:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGE_QezA6ugxUB61g0f0mz_KrOptU4k3ubWEBSfKzUqAGUBPEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11
From: Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b1117bf7dd4f8050ed86cef"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uK0Ogl7pZkywij51ZsjgOfQlsGw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:53:40 -0800
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: acabello@ac.upc.edu
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:33:10 -0000
Hi David Thanks for your comments, I am parsing them and I´ll suggest new text aiming to address them ASAP. I would also like to better understand [A] before doing this. With LISP an EID-preifx can have an arbitrary length and can move (i.e., change its RLOC bindings), in the specific case of a VM/mobile node the EID-prefix should be /32 or /128 (IPv4 or IPv6 respectively). What doesn't work is the mobility of a node (assigned with a /32 or /128) *within* a coarser EID-prefix, in this case you need to split the prefix into more specifics and register them independently in the Mapping System, effectively creating new EID-prefixes. Please let me know if this clarifies your comment, in this case I will suggest new text for Section 5. Albert On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote: > Dino - thanks for the response. > > On the major issues, it looks like both [A] and [B] involve only the text > in this draft and nothing beyond, which is good news. I have a simple text > suggestion for [A], but it looks like [B] is going to require some careful > editing, as one of the primary causes is that the draft is sloppy in using > the same symbol "G" to represent both EID and RLOC multicast groups. > > On the minor issues, I have text suggestions for three of the four, and > I'd like to temporarily defer further discussion the IPv6 UDP zero > checksum "tarpit" in favor of resolving everything else first. > > On the nits/editorial comments, all the suggestions in your email are fine > with me. FWIW, I regard that portion of a review as almost entirely > subject to the draft authors' discretion (and editorial taste). > > > >> [A] EID mobility vs. EID prefixes > > > > ... from the start of the LISP design (circa 2007), an prefix is what > moves. > > And a specific EID is simply a /32 or /128 prefix. Here is a practical > > example: > > A statement that the mobility use cases need to employ /32 and /128 > prefixes, > and not anything coarser should suffice. That should be added to Section > 5. > > > >> [B] LISP Multicast vs. EID/RLOC separate > > >> > > >> - 6. Multicast > > >> > > >> This is interesting, multicast addresses (G) look like they're an > exception > > > > They are really not. > > My concern is that as I read the draft, it leaves me with the strong > impression > that the same multicast addresses (G) are being used in both the overlay > (as EIDs) and the underlay (as RLOCs). From your response, I conclude > that this > is not the case (and I have no argument with that). Rather, Section 6 > needs to > bluntly state that multicast addresses are mapped between EID and RLOC > space at > both ITRs and ETRs, so that the following inference is obvious from the > text > (it's currently not obvious): > > > So it makes perfect sense to register multicast addresses to the mapping > > system as EIDs and they can map to RLOCs of sites that have joined the > group. > > As part of this, I strongly recommend moving away from use of "G" to refer > to > multicast groups in both the overlay and underlay. Careful use of G-EID > and G-RLOC would significantly improve clarity. > > --- > If the above are done for [A] and [B] in Sections 5 and 6, then the text > for the > use cases in Section 7 should not need further attention. > --- > > > >> -- Minor Issues -- > > >> > > >> There seems to be an implicit assumption that the end host and its > > >> ITR (xTR) are in the same domain or Autonomous System. For > incremental > > > > This is true when you call the domain a "LISP site". But if the site is > > unchanged and one uses PITRs, maybe even close to the site, like in a PE > > router, then the PITR is definitely in another AS. > > Looking at the text, it seems that "LISP site" and "domain" are the same > concept for this draft. That would be useful to state, IMHO but I'll leave > the decision on whether to do so to you and the draft authors. > > On rereading, my concerns seem to be triggered mostly by this sentence in > Section 3.2: > > The edge consists of LISP sites (e.g., an > Autonomous System) that use EID addresses. > > I think a small change to the last sentence in that paragraph would resolve > my concern without distracting from the narrative: > > OLD > EIDs do not > contain inter-domain topological information and because of this, > EIDs are usually routable at the edge (within LISP sites) or in the > non-LISP Internet. > NEW > EIDs do not > contain inter-domain topological information and because of this, > EIDs are usually routable at the edge (within LISP sites) or in the > non-LISP Internet; see Section 3.5 for discussion of LISP site > internetworking with non-LISP sites and domains in the Internet. > > > >> Despite multiple mentions of incremental deployment, I did not > > >> see a discussion of how that might be accomplished. > > > > There are PxTRs and NATs. And references to the LISP interworking RFC. > > Ok, can we just say so in Section 3.5? Adding the following sentence > to the end of the section would suffice: > > PITRs, PETRs and LISP-NAT support incremental deployment of LISP > by providing significant flexibility in location of the boundaries > between the LISP and non-LISP portions of the network, and making > it reasonable to change those boundaries over time. > > > >> - 3.3.1. LISP Encapsulation > > >> > > >> the source port is selected by > > >> the ITR and ignored on reception. > > >> > > >> Please mention multipathing (e.g., ECMP and LAG) as possible > influences > > >> on how source ports are selected, as this imposes some limits on what > an > > >> ITR can reasonably do. > > > > ECMP/LAG don't influence which source port is selected. It is a 5-tuple > hash > > of the inner header that selects a source port that influences how an > underlay > > router would load-split traffic. > > Please state that a 5-tuple hash is used. ECMP/LAG is among the important > reasons why, but that doesn't need to be stated if you prefer not to. An > example of something that needs to be excluded is that using a random > number generator to set the source port would be wrong - I could suggest > citing draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp for related discussion (and lots more > details), but I don't think that's necessary. > > -- IPv6 zero UDP checksum > > > My head spins every time I hear about this subject. This subject has been > > talked about from 100s of people for a decade. We have CRC on links, we > have > > apps that use TCP and UDP checksums. Nuf said. > > Understood - there's more than one set of scars on this one :-(. Let's > come back > to this topic after we've resolved everything else, and please keep in mind > that I tagged this as a minor issue, not a major one (e.g., the above > changes > for [A] and [B] are far more important, IMHO). > > Thanks, > --David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:19 PM > > To: Joel M. Halpern > > Cc: Black, David; Albert Cabellos; Damien Saucez; ops-dir@ietf.org; > > ietf@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 > > > > > I will leave most of these for the authors to comment on. > > > > See my comments inline. Thanks David for your detailed review and > commentary. > > > > > With regard to your question about incremental deployment, that is the > > domain of the LISP Deployment document, and was deliberately only lightly > > covered here. I am not sure what we can do to address your comment > without > > duplicating the entirety of that document. > > > > That is the risk we may have with many of your comments. We have a lot of > > detail in the already 9 published RFCs and this document really is to > take > > all that detail and summarize as an easily understandable description of > a > > cohesive design. > > > > > With regard to UDP Zero, this was approved by the IESG and published > as an > > RFC. It is part of the way the protocol is defined. If there are > specific > > changes you would like to see in the explanatory text, I am sure > > > > Definitely agreed. In fact we instigated UDP zero. And I continually > talk to > > hardware engineers and they all believe we made the right decision. So > hats > > off to the IETF for being practical. > > > > > we could include them. If you are looking for a change in the > behavior, > > this document can not make changes to the LISP behavior. > > > > Yes, an important point. > > > > >> I found a couple of major issues that I hope arise from the > > >> summarization of LISP in this draft, as opposed to being problems in > > >> the actual LISP protocols. I also found a few minor issues, the most > > >> important of which is the need for additional security considerations > > >> discussion on misdelivery, with particular attention to VPNs. > > > > Thanks a ton. > > > > >> -- Major issues -- > > >> > > >> [A] EID mobility vs. EID prefixes > > >> > > >> - 5. Mobility > > >> > > >> I understand how this works when mapping is per-EID, but how does > this work > > >> when the EID of the system that moves is part of an EID prefix, as > > discussed > > >> in Section 3.4.1? Even if the answer is a long version of "Don't do > that!" > > >> it should be explained. > > > > No, from the start of the LISP design (circa 2007), an prefix is what > moves. > > And a specific EID is simply a /32 or /128 prefix. Here is a practical > > example: > > > > You have a cluster of servers that communicate together for a particular > > application. They application cluster is running in a set of VMs. Those > VMs > > are assigned EIDs from a common power-of-2 EID-prefix. Those VMs are > currently > > running in a brick-and-mortar data center. Now there is a desire to move > the > > VM cluster to a cloud provider. What is moved is the EID-prefix of the > > cluster. The mapping system is told that the EID-prefix is changing its > RLOC- > > set from the brick-and-mortar xTRs to the cloud providers xTRs. > > > > >> > > >> - 7.4. LISP for Virtual Machine Mobility in Data Centers > > >> > > >> I don't understand how this works when EID prefixes are used, as each > VM > > >> has its own EID or EIDs, hence the entire prefix range does not move > when > > >> the VM moves. > > >> > > >> For OPS-Dir, this EID prefix issue [A] falls under A.1.1 in Appendix A > > >> of RFC 5706: Has deployment been discussed? and specifically under: > > >> > > >> * Is the proposed specification deployable? If not, how could > > >> it be improved? > > >> > > >> as EID prefixes appear to be undeployable for Mobility and VM Mobility > > usage. > > > > See above example. > > > > >> [B] LISP Multicast vs. EID/RLOC separate > > >> > > >> - 6. Multicast > > >> > > >> This is interesting, multicast addresses (G) look like they're an > exception > > > > They are really not. Since multicast addresses *identify* a group of > > receivers, it is very much an EID and aheres to the definition of an EID. > > Multicast addresses never had topological signficance but the state > > representing a distribution tree does tell you were the members are (but > the > > identity of the members are not know in multicast). > > > > So it makes perfect sense to register multicast addresses to the mapping > > system as EIDs and they can map to RLOCs of sites that have joined the > group. > > See draft-farinacci-signal-free-multicast as just one example. RFC6831 > and > > draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling are other examples. > > > > >> to the EID/RLOC separation as the same destination IP multicast > address > > >> is used for both purposes. This could use some more discussion, as > it's > > >> unexpected based on the contents of the draft up to this point. > > > > I believe the level of detail we have in the introduction document is at > the > > right level or we'll err on having way too many details crop in. > > > > >> - 7.2. LISP for IPv6 Co-existence > > >> > > >> LISP encapsulations allows to transport packets using EIDs from a > > >> given address family (e.g., IPv6) with packets from other address > > >> families (e.g., IPv4). > > >> > > >> How does that work for multicast traffic, where the destination > address > > >> (G) has to be the same in both the inner and outer headers? Are ETRs > > >> and ITRs expected to map IPv6 multicast addresses to IPv4 and v.v.? > > > > The mapping system can map an (S-EID-ipv6, group-ipv6) 2-tuple to a RLOC > set > > that looked like this (ipv4-multicast, ipv4-unicast) mean the ITR that > > receives the packet from S-EID-ipv6 would replicate the packet and > multicast > > encapsulate to ipv4-multicast and unicast encapsualte to ipv4-unicast. > > > > >> - 7.3. LISP for Virtual Private Networks > > >> > > >> This also has multicast problems, as there is only one instance of > each > > >> multicast address (G) in the underlay network. I think I can figure > out > > how > > > > You can map from EID-G to RLOC-G one to one. But we have seen over the > last > > decade in a half that with general multicast deployment that many-to-1 is > > desirable. Hence, now that we have a way to map with a network-based > database, > > we can map multiple EID-Gs to a single (or multiple) RLOC-Gs. > > > > >> to make multicast work for this use case, but it's not immediately > obvious, > > >> and the result when the same underlay multicast address is used by > more > > >> than one VPN could well deliver some traffic to ETRs that have to > discard > > > > This is a necessary evil when the underlay is state challenged. But it > is a > > state/bandwidth tradeoff. We have found with MVPN deployment that the > network > > admin configures the underly or simply unicasts. > > > > >> it because the Instance ID is wrong (and that excessive delivery is a > > >> security consideration, see minor issue on Section 8 below). I think > an > > >> explanation is in order. > > > > There are just too many combinations to make a high-level description > simple > > to understand. The current introduction text does a find job providing > > references for someone to go off and get the details. > > > > >> -- Minor Issues -- > > >> > > >> There seems to be an implicit assumption that the end host and its > > >> ITR (xTR) are in the same domain or Autonomous System. For > incremental > > > > This is true when you call the domain a "LISP site". But if the site is > > unchanged and one uses PITRs, maybe even close to the site, like in a PE > > router, then the PITR is definitely in another AS. But note I said PITR > and > > not ITR. The reason being is because an ITR is configured with database- > > mapping prefixes that is uses to encapsulate packets from such addresses. > > Versus the PITR being an ITR with *no database-mappings* providing a > much more > > larger/or more aggregtable service. > > > > >> deployment, I don't think that's always the case, but I think that > only > > >> has editorial impact on this document, as I don't think any of the > > >> fundamental LISP mechanisms are affected. The authors should look for > > >> use of "domain" and "Autonomous System" and ensure that the text is > > >> generalized to the case where the end host and ITR are more widely > > >> separated. > > > > We are overloaded with terms that create topological or organization > boundary. > > Hence why we created "LISP site" which is also the same as a "LISP VPN > site". > > Where a "LISP site" that has multiple tennants would be multiple "LISP > VPN > > sites". > > > > >> Despite multiple mentions of incremental deployment, I did not > > >> see a discussion of how that might be accomplished. There is some > > > > There are PxTRs and NATs. And references to the LISP interworking RFC. > > > > >> useful content in Section 3.5, but that's at best an incomplete > > >> explanation. This is an OPS-Dir review concern - it falls under > > >> A.1.3 in Appendix A of RFC 5706: Has the migration path been > discussed? > > >> > > >> - 3.3.1. LISP Encapsulation > > >> > > >> the source port is selected by > > >> the ITR and ignored on reception. > > >> > > >> Please mention multipathing (e.g., ECMP and LAG) as possible > influences > > >> on how source ports are selected, as this imposes some limits on what > an > > >> ITR can reasonably do. > > > > ECMP/LAG don't influence which source port is selected. It is a 5-tuple > hash > > of the inner header that selects a source port that influences how an > underlay > > router would load-split traffic. > > > > >> For OPS-Dir, this multipathing concern falls under A.1.4 in Appendix > A of > > >> RFC 5706: Have the Requirements on other protocols and functional > > >> components been discussed? > > >> > > >> This decision was made because the > > >> typical transport protocols used by the applications already > include > > >> a checksum, by neglecting the additional UDP encapsulation checksum > > >> xTRs can forward packets more efficiently. > > >> > > >> Groan! I have an exquisite set of scars on UDP zero checksums for > IPv6 > > >> from working on the MPLS in UDP draft, so I may be overly sensitive to > > >> this concern. The downside of this efficiency is that there is no > > >> checksum coverage of the IPv6 header when zero UDP checksums are used. > > >> That should at least be mentioned here, with a summary of why that's > ok > > >> - the detailed justification for why that's ok can be left to other > > >> documents. > > > > My head spins every time I hear about this subject. This subject has been > > talked about from 100s of people for a decade. We have CRC on links, we > have > > apps that use TCP and UDP checksums. Nuf said. > > > > >> > > >> -- Nits/Editorial Comments -- > > >> > > >> - Top of p.4: > > >> > > >> The initial motivation in the LISP effort is to be find in the > > >> > > >> "find" -> "found" > > >> > > >> - Section 3.1, first bullet item > > > > We will certainly fixe these. Thanks. > > > > >> > > >> Devices are assigned with relatively opaque identity > > >> meaningful addresses that are independent of their topological > > >> location. > > >> > > >> I don't understand "relatively opaque identity meaningful" and > > >> suggest rewriting the sentence. In particular - opaque to what? > > >> meaningful to what in what manner? > > > > Well beacuse it is as accurate as it can be. If automobiles are going to > be > > assigned EIDs from a VIN number allocation from a manufacture, the > address is > > relatively opaque. If a VM in a data-center is going to be assigned an > EID > > from the set of prefixes already being used and allocated to that > data-center, > > then there is a good chance that address is in a power-of-2 block that is > > summarizable in the IGP. > > > > >> > > >> - Section 3.2, second paragraph > > >> > > >> Judging from the figure, xTRs are the common case, with single- > > >> function ITRs and ETRs being rare. It might be good to say that > > >> and discuss when ITRs and ETRs that are not xTRs are appropriate > > >> to use. > > > > When you want egress path selection to happen further out in the > toplogical > > from the source location, then you put an ITR-only system there. Where > ingress > > to the same source (destination in this direction), the ETR can be > closer to > > the destination. > > > > >> > > >> - 3rd paragraph on p.7: > > >> > > >> > > >> Finally, the LISP architecture emphasizes a cost effective > > >> incremental deployment. > > >> > > >> I'd delete "cost effective" here and look for other occurrences > > >> of "cost" as candidates for deletion. This is supposed to be > > >> a technical document, so discussion of costs is a bit off-target. > > > > Fair enough. > > > > >> - First item after Figure 2: > > >> > > >> 1. HostA retrieves the EID_B of HostB, typically querying the DNS > > >> and obtaining and A or AAAA record. > > >> > > >> "and A" -> "an A" (spelling checkers don't catch everything). > > > > Already noted and will be fixed. > > > > >> > > >> - 3.3.1. LISP Encapsulation > > >> > > >> On the other hand, Recursive > > >> tunnels are nested tunnels and are implemented by using multiple > LISP > > >> encapsulations on a packet. > > >> > > >> The above sentence seems out of place in the middle of a paragraph > about > > >> Re-encapsulating tunnels and routers - I suggest moving it down into > its > > >> own paragraph and perhaps adding a sentence about where/how Recursive > > >> tunnels may be useful. > > > > Good suggestion and makes sense. > > > > >> - 3.3.2. LISP Forwarding State > > >> > > >> In the LISP architecture, ITRs keep just enough information to > route > > >> traffic flowing through it. > > >> > > >> "it." -> "them." > > >> > > >> Meaning that, ITRs retrieve from the > > >> LISP Mapping System mappings between EID prefixes and RLOCs that > are > > >> used to encapsulate packets. > > >> > > >> This is the first use of the notion of EID prefixes. That concept > should > > >> be explained before it is used, although a forward reference to > section > > >> 3.4.1 may suffice. It might be better to rewrite this paragraph in > terms > > >> of EIDs and leave the notion of EID prefixes to section 3.4.1. > > > > Hmm, I'll let Albert and Damien decide if we should state "EID-prefixes" > > everywhere instead of just "EID". > > > > >> > > >> - 4.4. MTU Handling > > >> > > >> Additionally, LISP also recommends inferring reachability of > locators > > >> by using information provided by the underlay, in particular: > > >> > > >> It'd be useful to add a sentence or two about how LISP and the > techniques > > >> in this section interact with host use of PMTUD and PLPMTUD. > > > > This is a lot of detail because in RFC6830 we have 3 positions or > options on > > the subject. And we did provide a reference to RFC6830 for this topic. > > > > >> - Next to last paragraph on p.17: > > >> > > >> Additionally, LISP also recommends inferring reachability of > locators > > >> by using information provided by the underlay, in particular: > > >> > > >> This looks like it's a paragraph early and needs to be moved down to > > >> after the paragraph that follows it. > > > > Agree. > > > > >> idnits 2.13.01 didn't find any nits. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> --David > > > > Thanks again David. > > > > Dino > >
- OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-11 Black, David
- Re: OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introductio… Joel M. Halpern
- RE: OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-introductio… Black, David
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Dino Farinacci
- RE: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Black, David
- RE: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Black, David
- RE: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Jmh.direct
- RE: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Black, David
- RE: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Jmh.direct
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Luigi Iannone
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-lisp-intr… Albert Cabellos