IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Standard Track

Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.com>
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 DF3291B31AC for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 0bpzJfia6I1d for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AF261B3107 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1518; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440511285; x=1441720885; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qmvRY4CYowmjqwLZ3r5xhQ1QHRrzUaAUgUoATP2ctwo=; b=Dnd2nwnnHGjj14ey2WclXotv5Vr2oSoJTMjv8+8cbNldDmjySrakUt47 k9D4fPlflNVyTepqbPmGIH7Lf+bF4U0ThcVzD+Eb+QpeR7l7PLD0+w4Ug lBJqztjDnZy3VZmfGFRdpNRDETPY6FEvOOrpyRgBKBjCtBa4fLFGlF9C5 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B5AgAKdNxV/49dJa1dgxtUab4LAQmBbQqFewKBMTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQQBAQE1NgoRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMBMGAgEBiCoNx20BAQEBAQUBAQEBARkEi1eFEReEFQEEjWCHV4xyiHWRXyaEHh4zgkwBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,746,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="23393902"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2015 14:01:24 +0000
Received: from [10.24.28.152] ([10.24.28.152]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7PE1Ot2002286 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:01:24 GMT
To: lisp@ietf.org
References: <F6C97F59-9BC7-4AE0-8ADB-DD1ED37101CA@gigix.net> <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net>
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55DC7532.9090807@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/C4x20K0IlYHbCqRVjMAmV1NnSgk>
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 14:01:27 -0000

I support focusing on the overlay technology and associated use cases, 
and move the work to standard track.

Fabio

On 8/25/15 2:07 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email