IETF Logo Mail Archive

[lisp] Fwd: Lisp Portable Edge Multipoint Sockets

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Mon, 21 November 2022 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC61C15271D for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lVofbGpHnzsK for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E41B6C1526F1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id b185so12106683pfb.9 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:to:references:message-id:subject:mime-version:from:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Re6iwIvEM/mhfgMyy11eGBuBtJuVHpM5sP9bGxCk6HQ=; b=UG1Zm0nrS7d0i0442QidsHLjNr2N1u/pANTsLATxasEyxmNfOH3g8CkE3elG6J/XM8 g+ara23mySWF6hdPeNMJxp9LyDukcCm5IlSyJNhDJTU6guq3GeAB/CmVIZOb98avKuby S+vEKJAHkpo0atOpIgI+OElVQZgBg5BmQd4tDWgI/IHJ0ntrwSu8bSUiJhg88NMJ6HSB QiesPebeg84QJKFyw7mzhF8UubOhbC+d7ELW/Gw5dYgrI7ddlVb7aBH91v4Dlk0lqOPM chvrxYFpBf+j6x5IJkhIOe5lnFJQbmZ3ovMVYYqgBCOD1zAx/3K6cnWF5iTlTBL6BCYG SuMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=date:to:references:message-id:subject:mime-version:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Re6iwIvEM/mhfgMyy11eGBuBtJuVHpM5sP9bGxCk6HQ=; b=Sp3v63OEuTd4J5attkDX8HGLTgHWcuXVOGsYZgIvu52GtHmpmRoOwDZfYKyIKZQEMi EVIYEKEVqYRyc7/vjYJ4G9swfsZVbWEMLZL9YLpAG38MCwBgoKs25KkxF6OlTNb5l9eb V+y451lt3y0H92+zlDwFWM6PojB5DIkghOkxqYVpoefhhobp5dcmNlTezzzkZIpykJfp p1oTle9JcBUZAdFfpZw0Wcih/h1G1jpfAFskXhGqUN6Db5tvrvxghlTn/BxeGnHDJ/ES zL5Y0AEy/MSm2M3AUdzuNm2CK85j4wnFint2e6Ome83Ifwci1ekIhYZ49FcZv8nBiXgC Fu8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkKtoqPkYWK2A1/xenfhpCSwnJZG6icNjQ+Tp2J+pbySiuoQZah T2eQ+SeBwzGHhj1Xdm9/FIakIzOSGWM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7ZjkcoVV77aUxqAiyJxmocpqpQ3UD1eZz+2AZiatth1MrMkmG2C0KI/lC8EEInD+z88CIhiQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:fd47:0:b0:477:1a2b:762e with SMTP id m7-20020a63fd47000000b004771a2b762emr8636407pgj.240.1669055595859; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:642:4c01:5755:90f1:9066:9942:f8f8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u14-20020a170902e80e00b00186c5e8a8d7sm10202033plg.171.2022.11.21.10.33.15 for <lisp@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA93EFA7-E107-464D-B1EC-ED07D259EC4D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Message-Id: <AE72F2C0-78ED-4564-81B9-4427C8A62149@gmail.com>
References: <10FAEDDA-8BFD-4D89-BD36-243BD4FE4F28@getnexar.com>
To: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:33:14 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/3-Wv0UnHC_RghsIsJboA3JNsV44>
Subject: [lisp] Fwd: Lisp Portable Edge Multipoint Sockets
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 21 Nov 2022 18:33:17 -0000

Yes, everything you can define the better. Even a "socket" since its an overloaded term. Plus you want to define terms based on how the document is going to use them. So defining "EID" in the context of your document would make the ideas more clear. Like an EID in this spec defines an object versus a host.

I don't think there is a standard format for describing the API. Just calls and input and output parameter descriptions you should include.

As for eBPF, just describe what filters you are need to use to associate packet flows with an EID. And that this is a local matter and the flows are NOT put in the mapping system like it could be for the Multi-Tuple draft.

I am not sure who you are referring to but I know a lot of people that use eBPF. You should google for a list name and propose they review the document and definitely invite them to IETF.

Dino

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>
> Subject: Re: Lisp Portable Edge Multipoint Sockets
> Date: November 20, 2022 at 11:30:45 PM PST
> To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
> Cc: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Jordi <jordip@ac.upc.edu>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>
> 
> Thats all very true!
> 
> Could you say this also on the list so we know theres workgroup interest in developing this? 
> 
> What about the EID Queue/Channel API ?
> Do we have any good existing format we can adapt/adopt ?
> 
> How detailed should be the eBPF implementation description, can we engage the eBPF people that came to the last IETF? I think you know one of them .. they want to RFC eBPF itself. 
> 
> --szb
> Cell: +972.53.2470068
> WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2022, at 22:51, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think you need a lot more terms defined in your Definition of Terms section. Any reference to a new concept must be defined, even "edge compute IOT".
>> 
>> And you need more on the "how" its done. You have plenty on what it is.
>> 
>> Dino
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2022, at 7:35 AM, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Could you have a look?
>>> Can make writing other edge application specs simpler..
>>> 
>>> <draft-barkai-lisp-pems-00.txt>
>>> 
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email