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

[Marc Binderberger <[e-mail]>]

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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>