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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

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.

Tom

> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> On 5/13/17 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> At the Chicago WG meeting I made a request that ILA be taken up as a
>> WG item in int-area. The WG chairs and AD requested that we raise a
>> discussion on the list about what else is needed to be done for ILA
>> (Identifier Locator Addressing draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-04). The
>> question was also raised if int-area is the right WG for ILA or if it
>> should have a BOF.
>>
>> The current draft of ILA describes the data plane and addressing, a
>> model for ILA for ILA routing and network topology, several use case
>> scenarios on how ILA might be applied, a format for identifiers to
>> allow different types of identifiers and checksum neutral mapping. As
>> I mentioned we intend to make the last one optional so that
>> administrators can choose how structure the 64 bit identifiers as they
>> see fit-- this will be reflected in the next version of the draft.
>>
>> The draft explicitly does not define a specific control plane (e.g.
>> routing protocol) for ILA and I don't think that it should. IMO ILA
>> would be better served to allow various methods that are protocol
>> generic where ILA could be a use case of those mechanisms. For
>> instance, draft-lapukhov-bgp-ila-afi-02 describes and extension for
>> BGP. Similarly, if a protocol agnostic control plane is developed in
>> IDEAS or in nvo3, then ILA could be one use case for those. I would
>> think the control plane seems more appropriate to be in routing area
>> than int-area.
>>
>> As for what is still missing in the core ILA draft, besides making
>> typed identifiers optional, I think it is fairly complete for the data
>> plane description. It is being deployed in a least on datacenter for
>> network virtualization, and it is being discussed as part of a
>> solution to support IP mobility (see 5GandIP discussions).
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>
>