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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I do not think classic Internet tunnels (e.g. IP in IP or GRE) are a good
> comparison for ILA.  The ILA mapping requires dynamic knowledge about the
> remote end.  (One of the things that is important about ILA is its ability
> to hide dynamics.)
> GUE at least is proposed specifically for use in data centers.
>
>
I don't think this discussion, i.e. Tom's request to intarea was related to
GUE which is already a WG draft.
Also GUE is not specifically proposed for data centers, but it could be
used in data centers with certain extension headers.

I still think that especially if experimental/standard track is used means
to manage ILA would be needed.


My two cents :)

Behcet



> I think you understand my point, so I will not belabour it.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> On 5/17/17 1:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>
>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 5/16/17 11:25 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14 May 2017 at 03:21, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Joel M. Halpern
>>>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[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.
>>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>