Re: [lisp] WG Charter

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 03 July 2015 17:08 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 5535E1A00BE for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 NIpWg_0L-qXv for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (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 38D861A00DB for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacws9 with SMTP id ws9so60838017pac.0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:08:40 -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=aXPKgDvNHY1SWR7J03PMu+s9XnK4pDsIWwNfuMcZQbk=; b=Y/eFTJ4RvU0KLmI3DDDimUav+oU53KuyR8yhnssJqWnRs1cyhmhY3pSVun952Dl17U osRT/SKkocHSWLtB4+MuXHj5he3a1k4N0Yax5bd/b7FSqgQAlAh4a0W/7Y1WcFh7443e 0h1x/bxBLIap3YeTceDw2eG5Wdp8KktP2sC7pcWrwbaz+CZLKY+NUZjM4jbTbhAHuR3N qUuAS5F57Mj6v1rS+/lxtHhJ9Zu8d40nTxyr5klrGRRoEa6/hkzRdpfnqyqecVccrTI+ mbLu6op2bPUrPhvtdLu4Jsy7gmWF6juWt0OrVLCqHSVKOZm0ZAB/Pn8myP4jPJLjlJw1 Bs6w==
X-Received: by 10.68.131.104 with SMTP id ol8mr3474869pbb.39.1435943319866; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.10.2] (mobile-166-171-251-080.mycingular.net. [166.171.251.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sl9sm9692268pac.41.2015.07.03.10.08.38 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1BC1719.63D2E%terry.manderson@icann.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:08:37 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FD22A6DB-C763-4A30-B6B1-5F8B48CB2FEA@gmail.com>
References: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com> <55943528.2070409@cisco.com> <DDB406BD-B997-43D0-A6B2-B79E8DA58CC7@gmail.com> <D1BC1719.63D2E%terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/LWv4ngmJ8aR83IozMCUao3nSA2Q>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Charter
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, 03 Jul 2015 17:08:44 -0000

> Making the spec PS fits the envisaged evolution of the LISP "experiment".
> The downside here might be that this is also recognition that LISP does
> not fix the _global_ routing scalability issue (presuming of course that
> the issue remains) in any short term exercise due to the way operators
> actually choose to run BGP. Is the global internet ready and willing to
> separate the locator and identifier in operations yet? I don't think so.

I think it does fix the problem or at least helps the problem Terry. The real question, as you state, is the Internet ready to use this solution.

> I would certainly say that it makes intra-AS routing systems leaner, as a
> very positive outcome.

And netflow caches smaller and EIDs in the underlay possibly private and more secure. All good things for USERS.

> I think the scrutiny came through multiple different lenses. Not just
> global routing scalability. I also doubt that the scrutiny will diminish.
> But I do like the idea of calling it what it really is. It's an overlay
> with attractive properties.

Agree.

> Take care to not leave the door _wide_ open. I look at LISP as a very
> (very!) well reviewed specification that currently is not overweight with
> unused/unnecessary features. I have a concern that having all and sundry
> adding in their pet feature may cause that attribute to suffer. Perhaps it
> would be sane to pick the 4-5 priority items and work on those, nail them
> and move forward that way.

Agree 100%, but Prague will be used to brainstorm. Once we do that, we need to DECIDE on those priority items. Hope you will be there to contribute. You have a lot of experience with LISP deployemnt and can bring a lot of value to the discussion.

Thanks,
Dino

> 
> Cheers
> Terry
> 
> 
> 
>