Re: [lisp] [tcmtf] TCMTF: two kinds of services

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Luigi,

 

What about this protocol stack for LISP within TCMTF?

(to be seen in Courier letters)

 

    TCP/IP   UDP/IP  RTP/UDP/IP

         \     |     /

          \    |    /                     ------------------------------

           \   |   /

Nothing or ROHC or ECRTP or IPHC             header compressing layer

               |

               |                          ------------------------------

               |

   PPPMUX or other mux protocols                multiplexing layer

           /   |     \

          /    |      \                   ------------------------------

         /    LISP     \

        /      |        \

GRE or L2TP   UDP        \                        tunneling layer

       |       |        MPLS

       |       |                           ------------------------------

       IP      IP

 

 

I don’t know if LISP could be included into TCMTF draft. What do you think?
Should it be defined inside the LISP WG?

 

We have to talk about that LISP signaling which could be used in TCMTF, as
you say.

 

Thanks,

 

Jose

 

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de

> Luigi Iannone

> Enviado el: jueves, 11 de octubre de 2012 9:11

> Para: [e-mail]

> CC: [e-mail]

> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: two kinds of services

> 

> Hi Jose,

> 

> I would put LISP in two different layers.

> 

> You can consider LISP as composed of two main parts:

> 

> 1. the encap/decap operations (i.e., the tunnelling)

> 

> 2. the mapping system (basically controlling which traffic is tunnelled).

> 

> The first can be used  at the tunnelling layer, beside GRE/MPLS/L2TP
(having

> multiple options is always a good thing ;-) ), to perform the tunnelling.
Some

> parts of the LISP header might be exploited to carry TE information (e.g.,
the

> Instance ID can be used as QoS tag).

> 

> The second can be used at Mux/Demux layer. The LISP mapping system

> might be extended to perform tcmtf negotiation by  leveraging on a

> particular form of mappings. The advantage is that there is already quite
a bit

> of signalling machinery out there that can be easily re-used/extended.

> 

> Ciao

> 

> Luigi

> 

> 

> On 10 Oct. 2012, at 13:48 , Jose Saldana < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 

> > Luigi,

> >

> > Where would you include LISP here? With GRE/L2TP, or with MPLS?

> >

> > We are also thinking about including other tunneling schemes, as VLAN,

> etc.

> >

> > (to be seen in Courier letters)

> >

> >    TCP/IP   UDP/IP  RTP/UDP/IP

> >         \     |     /

> >          \    |    /                     ------------------------------

> >           \   |   /

> > Nothing or ROHC or ECRTP or IPHC             header compressing layer

> >               |

> >               |                          ------------------------------

> >               |

> >   PPPMUX or other mux protocols                multiplexing layer

> >               |

> >              / \                         ------------------------------

> >             /   \

> >            /     \

> >   GRE or L2TP     \                              tunneling layer

> >          |        MPLS

> >          |                               ------------------------------

> >          IP

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > Jose

> >

> >> -----Mensaje original-----

> >> De:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] [
<mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre

> >> de Luigi Iannone Enviado el: miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2012 10:23

> >> Para:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> >> CC:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> >> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: two kinds of services

> >>

> >> Hi All,

> >>

> >> On 10 Oct. 2012, at 09:58 , Jose Saldana < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]> wrote:

> >>

> >>> - Tunneling will be used to send the multiplexed packets end-to-end.

> >>> The options in this layer are L2TP, GRE and MPLS.

> >>>

> >>

> >> I was wondering if the group might be interested in exploring also

> >> other

> > form

> >> of tunnelling, e.g., LISP.

> >>

> >> Obviously, since LISP is an experimental effort, it cannot be tagged

> >> as

> > "best

> >> current practice" and included in document (A).

> >>

> >> However, the group may have a slightly "larger" scope and include

> >> alternative forms of tunnelling (and/or multiplexing and/or header

> >> compression) (may be documented separately).

> >>

> >> Thoughts?

> >>

> >> ciao

> >>

> >> Luigi

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> tcmtf mailing list

> >>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> >>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf

> >

> 

> _______________________________________________

> tcmtf mailing list

>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf