Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de> Wed, 10 December 2014 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@sniff.de>
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 8F4531A6FC6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 zE1CjJWlSAjI for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:29:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from door.sniff.de (door.sniff.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:94f:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F5C1A066C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:29:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.sniff.de [127.0.0.1]) by door.sniff.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B180F2AA0F; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:29:08 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:01 -0800
From: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141210103301974277.9ad80225@sniff.de>
In-Reply-To: <AFBC926D-FBCF-46DD-81AF-AF936D4B36DE@gmail.com>
References: <D35D7CD0-20E5-4210-8025-7C92441DD339@gigix.net> <5480B13C.4090203@cisco.com> <97DA0D20-84D3-4478-8F90-C033E67172CD@gmail.com> <5481DCB6.6070300@cisco.com> <B8414A88-F630-4FC3-A2FC-05235D78D483@gmail.com> <54822778.6050505@cisco.com> <AFBC926D-FBCF-46DD-81AF-AF936D4B36DE@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: GyazMail version 1.5.15
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/9qXVBD3TnXTpxxGHpkerUnkrZL0
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:29:12 -0000

Hello Dino,

you mentioned in another email

> The LISP WG has a control-plane that others may use. We should create laser 
focus on
> control-plane features and scale. The latter being most important.

I like the ideas in your crypto draft but the data header aspect ... could 
you change this to a set of requirements your draft has for the data header 
and drop the explicit header layout instead?

This would give the draft the focus on the control plane and we keep the 
details of the data header open.


Thanks & Regards,
Marc



On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:06:47 -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> extension of the encap (as well as of the control plane, if needed) to 
>> address various LISP use cases.
> 
> I do like to see a list of requirements that requires changes to LISP 
> encapsulation. 
> 
> LISP-GPE adds no new functionality. NSH can be done without packet 
> encapsulation from any overlay protocol. 
> 
>> In my experience when customers see the benefit of overlays (LISP in my 
>> case) they tend jump on it... but you know this way better than me :-) 
>> It's our responsibility as a WG to clear up the confusion about 
>> encapsulations.
> 
> Well adding new encapsulation to the mix doesn't clear up confusion. It 
> adds to it. 
> 
> Dino
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>