IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Comments to draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-ms-smr-00.txt

farinacci@gmail.com Fri, 02 October 2015 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.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 112951A90E2 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 NEgDhAZsUmSs for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (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 9625A1A90E0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so89528926pad.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=fkPgCHpN9DeOG7QSAsjREReecGIE3cB2vmloTF0GjbQ=; b=C61JT10dHJApco6W3C+gWNs+Eoh9jMUqYt5BY+Gv20xZOUDKhcRhJfFw8nSHH2ww4U XmZsyy7noROT0EbBFLqACDKcWFRbQcLapIAW2Cwf0deSDiHDVQiNAgihISEOrddpnzPx VcQ2rjkDhFqhua5hWQHJd4MVpLgbnxUlCNuSv4T7Q8oLrzrVi+NwuI77BR/IfmJMzakw LnFHcYcCcQF8phvmtEwhBYF4PMIlRMUx7y/wySUj9zi43UqRyoKkwdUegdipws0fWDkz PH5KlziNza7r2rrhIZR5WLFP6cerCrHiAANdwgB3LUEJNNmcvYUfVxSNcb8Cqw1vlLcH 2qyw==
X-Received: by 10.68.137.161 with SMTP id qj1mr15963863pbb.14.1443745469156; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.63.111.139] ([166.170.40.18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id of1sm8960662pbc.11.2015.10.01.17.24.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1B3B0ECA-86B5-459B-8DE7-E9E9915FE51E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: farinacci@gmail.com
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13A404)
In-Reply-To: <560C63F1.9050201@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:23:39 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <870D90A9-20A5-4AB1-A2A0-0DBC723BDF91@gmail.com>
References: <3C2AD973-A1F7-4C84-B8D5-31BAA8371CA5@gmail.com> <560C3A74.80808@cisco.com> <1DA97E7A-E11E-4C21-9B70-8BF217D62780@gmail.com> <560C63F1.9050201@cisco.com>
To: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/DJeJwd72Eb-Dth2IWXNFBaemOGM>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments to draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-ms-smr-00.txt
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:24:32 -0000

Your email (see below) says the main point of the draft is to document the behavior of ODL. If that is truly the main point, why shouldn't it go into the draft.  Generalizing to an SDN usage could mean all sorts of intentions. 

I look forward to discussing this at the WG meeting. 

Dino

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dino, 
> the draft says, right in the abstract, that:  "This extension is intended to be used in some SDN deployments that use LISP as a southbound protocol with (P)ITRs that are compliant with [RFC6830]." I don't think we need to qualify that any further. It clearly states what the scope is without the need to enumerate implementations (that I believe would be quite unusual for a draft). 
> 
> This is a draft marked as experimental  contributed to the LISP WG as part of the conversation on pub-sub. I honestly don't know what the WG will decide to do with it. I observe that the authors are not proposing this draft as a WG item. 
> 
> If the WG will ever decide to have a WG draft on pub-sub, I hope there will be a section talking about interoperability with xTRs that are RFC6830 compliant. This draft may, or may not, help writing that section. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Fabio
> 
> 
>> On 9/30/15 1:36 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> Hi Dino,
>>> thanks for your replay.
>>> 
>>> The main goal of this draft is to document what is implemented in ODL (https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_Lisp_Flow_Mapping:Architecture), with the hope that comments and feedback will help us improve that solution, and facilitate interoperability.
>> The draft does not say that.
>> 
>> If that is the goal to document ODL behavior, can you please state that in the document. And indicate that this solution may not be a permanent one but a draft that simply documents an implementation behavior?
>> 
>>> The driving requirement (as stated upfront in the abstract) is interoperability with EXISTING xTRs, as specified in RFC 6830.
>> But more to the point for SDN environments, where with SDN, there are multiple ways to skin a cat, where ODL is one such way of doing SDN.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dino
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email