Re: [lisp] WG Charter

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Mon, 06 July 2015 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025D41A7017 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 9AVpjfGwZwTl for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22c.google.com (mail-pd0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) (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 63CE71A1B4C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbdz6 with SMTP id dz6so17856706pdb.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DhvRbbdTmikp6pIBscR8XbdLEPn8e1DlMvAnshnyyqg=; b=mOaq9d9+wR3gWPOS2Bw03f0+cD0Ljd/F4Z2+8G+jeA5L0oXwd+oC3YzfJpVrBJUzdg JAx09bpPK2x2TRCZIywtq2kh42/5Av7q8EeXlBgcgyqIl65vIUEY5RGjxqEDlBkVkFon 4r7fWxIdGL/eQZ0Ki9XsN/rkT+VFX08yOmFINPphcF8b3Mj9Gw0sBP5aANW/JTUE3tWu vSxELJevT0zXixF0HGQFS5ct/vcVjRm2GiHYeclr8UCE+FFuYwqBlJHyKD8zhW9Z2Ih9 IvOPhpj3IAZuVUVZ4HEjwXDmhP8lgvHvkZK/BXn72rc8cy5m9p5IoWDKyzXY95M9xqKN Hs9w==
X-Received: by 10.66.155.36 with SMTP id vt4mr2086945pab.32.1436220944048; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.10.2] (mobile-166-171-250-235.mycingular.net. [166.171.250.235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yp5sm19388452pbb.22.2015.07.06.15.15.42 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0834364C@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:15:45 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <60037DBA-98A4-4109-9E94-0E69B0D82942@gmail.com>
References: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com> <55943528.2070409@cisco.com> <DDB406BD-B997-43D0-A6B2-B79E8DA58CC7@gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0833DF40@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <B28EBFE9-9AF6-4D21-AED8-F774E6AD799B@gmail.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0834364C@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/0G972VW2a3e3zyhBKE8Quk3pHwU>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Charter
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 22:15:51 -0000

> If IP-based tunnels (e.g., MPLS-in-GRE or MPLS-in-UDP) are used between PE routers, is there still any difference on applicability between these two VPN technologies?

The mechanism and location of tunneling is not important. It is the type of service the solution can offer and what was intended in its initial design.

There is a lot of difference when you look at the type of services ISP based VPNs offer and what LISP VPNs offer with all the other solutions LISP can offer along with VPNs.

> 
>>> From the data plane perspective, given the fact that there is unprecedented
>> enthusiasm for defining various data plane encapsulations (e.g., VXLAN, NVGRE,
>> VXLAN-GPE, GUE-NVO, GENEVE...) , it seems no surprise to add two more (e.g.,
>> LISP and LISP-GPE). From the control plane perspective, as BGP could be used as
>> a pull-based control plane as well due to its prefix-ORF mechanism, what's the
>> major advantage of LISP over BGP?
>> 
>> There have been many pros and cons using BGP as a push control-plane and
>> LISP as a control-plane. At the high-level, I’ll state one difference. The LISP
>> control plane (the mapping database nodes), are in less places in the network
>> than BGP nodes. So that means less coordination and management.
> 
> In the data center network environment, route reflectors could be run over spine nodes or even servers. As such, these route reflectors could be looked as mapping database nodes. Hence, from the coordination and management perspectives, these two approaches seem almost the same, No?

Yes, but the information is pushed. At some point any protocol and architecture can be changed, used, or misused to look like another. But what is important is how it was designed from the beginning.

> Due to the new mobility requirements in 5G architecture (e.g., ultra-low
>> latency), LISP-MN mobility may be a competitive candidate.
>> 
>> Why do you say that? Compared to other solutions its better. Or some technical
>> aspect?
> 
> Compared to other HA-based mobile IP solution, I think id/locator split solution looks better in the long run since it has the potential of eliminating the path stretch issue.

Right, agree.

Dino

> 
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu