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

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
> wrote:
> > If we want the documents to be informational, then it should be about a
> > context where we understand how to build the surrounding infrastructure.
> > For example, if it were documented for data centers, based on Facebook's
> > experience, I would have trouble objecting to informational publication.
> >
> > If we do not know where it applies, and what to try it out in various
> > contexts with various control setups, then that sounds like experimental
> > RFCs.  While I have my doubts about some of the applicability, that
> should
> > not stop useful experimentation.
> >
> > But an informational document that says that this can be used (roughly
> > speaking) ~anywhere you can figure out a way to control it~ seems a bit
> odd.
> >
> Okay, thanks for the clarification. It seems like either experimental
> or standard would be appropriate then. The other aspect that could be
> relevant is there is no change to on the wire protocol, I'm not sure
> how that would impact the track status.
>
> As far as how to control it, I would point out that neither GRE nor
> IPIP, probably the two most common encapsulations in use, don't
> specify an associated control protocol. We are taking that same
> approach with GUE and I think that same approach is good for ILA. It
> would be great to see a common control plane for tunneling and
> virtualization that solves the larger common problem (this is why
> IDEAS is exciting to me), but even if that existed it would never be
> the only means to control the dataplane. In some deployments simple
> configuration is more than sufficient, for example.
>
>
Tom, I think you are confusing  what Joel said, i.e.  figure out a way to
control it with what you have in your mind, i.e. control plane.
I think  a way to control it  means defining a few RADIUS attributes to
manage ILA which can be done in an accompanying draft.

Regards,

Behcet

> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > On 5/16/17 11:25 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14 May 2017 at 03:21, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com
> >> <mailto:tom@herbertland.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Joel M. Halpern
> >>     <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>