IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Standard Track

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Tue, 25 August 2015 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 6F22F1A7014 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 8F4ykXZjxA_S for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (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 D20D01ACD05 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so8442314wic.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=LHanSk5b5xLUyF2sQ+CQdjNN1rwXd8QPuuAJVv1i1/M=; b=Mv6ZyHLjrdOnjEoINrJ60rubVdUW4PV3x+/8uI3rr+wDG/SRr8wsg5cwZocbaCCUX/ rtCx701KcWbD8HLxVbXRLdCuxNiF/ZcyTNNMCBsjQjJ+ZMvFhaUIPVwyEL8TT0TnrvFn qAR4IrEYdsrYJGXSRhGlexu1ftpvt76cr20ZzttqHOr2DriTYrbwN8b7VVbUand3ivAL HdXunaZ9RC4B5R7HCj3ViaHa0OnOSQkrCnNcm2Jf8HxZtyatPDhTbuYfrMcoUSSM/bf8 +hVE08oaDEw5YLMHV5GzLZOfeNiYpNgM2rzgU/wfSR0w3eQhQ5evvvlgPPV+2dXcTtyI AsCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnd3sHmWKUaXIuAmDGKV1bNY8exfrSDrlDu4QlFWdoCmjP0W4uoayA7JA8msO2X11lhgz+8
X-Received: by 10.194.133.73 with SMTP id pa9mr48583007wjb.148.1440493633549; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ho10sm26996019wjb.39.2015.08.25.02.07.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <F6C97F59-9BC7-4AE0-8ADB-DD1ED37101CA@gigix.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:07:51 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net>
References: <F6C97F59-9BC7-4AE0-8ADB-DD1ED37101CA@gigix.net>
To: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/4NlohLjFX_HCBhk3WU2jrCGFC5M>
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:07:16 -0000

Folks,

so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people are not interested in moving LISP to ST?

L.


> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time for the WG 
> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on the core
> protocol technology. 
> 
> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by experimental work 
> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so far. 
> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefits 
> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed.
> 
> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspects,
> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work
> on standard track. 
> 
> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to re-work 
> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to scalability,
> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so far.
> 
> Would be the WG in favour of such direction?
> 
> Joel & Luigi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email