Re: [Int-area] ILA and int-area

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On 14 May 2017 at 03:21, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > It appears to me that there are contexts in which it is likely that ILA
> is
> > useful.
> >
> > Using the example of the progression of LISP, I have concern with the
> > current approach of NOT spelling out how and where it would be used. LISP
> > started out as experimental in significant part because it was not clear
> > where it would be useful.  We re now progressing it to PS with a clear
> > context.  And that context is NOT Internet-wide deployment for Internet
> > scaling.  Because that deployment problem is REALLY challenging.
> >
> > As such, if ILA wants to either be developed for the data center context
> or
> > be developed as an interesting experiment across a range of potential
> uses,
> > I can not object.
> >
> > I do have problems moving it forward towards standards track for some
> > unspecified but general use in its current form.  The dependence of the
> data
> > plane protocol on the information distribution is so strong that I do not
> > see how the general case can be treated.
> >
> Hi Joel,
>
> Intended status is listed as informational if that helps.
>
> I tend to think that the relationship between an ILA data plane and
> control plane is analogous to the relationship between the IP protocol
> and routing protocols. Yes, there is a strong dependency on having a
> control plane, but mandating a specific control plane as part of the
> core protocol reduces flexibility and extensibility.


Put another way: the domain of applicability is the same as the domain(s)
over which the control plane operates.  Any ILA packets outside that/ose
domain/s should just look like vanilla IPv6.