IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Standard Track

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Tue, 11 August 2015 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 8BA1B1B2A7C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 cCw8PlgggyKG for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (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 C18991B2A79 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so476386wic.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=D7eKc4pJqJOHIUf8+bIJL0xcYdxJ0PqgNpQC41Y4Ih8=; b=DHFsllSGAKa2Aq20frOOZ9Q/NuZlu884FCmM8UsYloZpe/wpY8uas0hra3gPaBreCb 4UCz8C34NC8bw4klWA59Bh/H19YLzvDcFeGrJ1Dv3ybZ93VpRXc1lWRlvTbNh0m3GG7e Pg9R3yTquES4OpJdLAkyDqzkmG2AS8oWdwKlm53DNKHE2tOXjqT83DCS4Yv9i5f4dJQ0 tiSaLXF7Doelq+E1S8VMU20MfFdLmHOOICBD7FsxcgfpxwqXqpNqFh1JapEWZB9iT2/O zZD81bTQnx8IKQuMgirXVVxQQPq+Npl9b5Sm07azJXuCUjfVu6sZeqtJ9CPLrZDwqAew O0Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmfoeSLsmocrj/TbPcB6HEjQE2gBkKslGzhS8wXomEuFL1UYJuTPbbFne8zgPcrsowNSln6
X-Received: by 10.194.95.71 with SMTP id di7mr61964833wjb.125.1439326185151; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.160.209.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lj2sm20379313wic.1.2015.08.11.13.49.39 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <D52940CA-CF8C-4E0F-80E1-3A8D97AC466A@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:49:29 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1A0DECE1-BB2D-4751-8AA2-8F20FFF4E64A@gigix.net>
References: <F6C97F59-9BC7-4AE0-8ADB-DD1ED37101CA@gigix.net> <D52940CA-CF8C-4E0F-80E1-3A8D97AC466A@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/R7336aGCJ7b0kQhqFvEHo2JMtag>
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
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, 11 Aug 2015 20:49:48 -0000

> On 11 Aug 2015, at 00:39, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> Could we use different wording rather than “dropping the scalability aspects”. I know you mean to core routing table scalability items. But we don’t want to convey in the charter that for the various overlay use-cases LISP can provide that it won’t scale. That is “scale of the protocol” and “having the protocol solve the Internet scalability problem” are two different and orthongonal items.

Agreed. That was just me being lazy writing. ;-)

What I meant was exactly the Internet routing table scalability, not the scalability of the protocol.

ciao

L.



> 
> And I think LISP should continue to scale the Internet, it just should not be the only or main focus of what LISP can provide.
> 
> Dino
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email