IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 20:36 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 6B2A31A8A84 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:49 -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 VCkPGkfhixm7 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (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 DE1201A8A86 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pablk4 with SMTP id lk4so49980246pab.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:44 -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=d8VblBkYI09+seqCbcATXXC0HAW2m9oYV39zKF/kVHw=; b=RWtPRw2dSsiZz9hd0XbGakuhbex9vv91USS8ah3OPF+1tTNaUAEEKSv/zfpUYSFVTi qDRDuQ7VG9kAuQq4EUEFn+SXsOw5GPW2gv8zWwVKixCOaB2WiGX8S1HQacZUXGiaX88x hLawMQJpMeDq6Z3p/NIZPllh+hjyGWSHLumuDF0LkoMdzOvg5qB7UI8Py2C7BJgOJp85 v2SekVsQFMoFscFGZUdWezJXSFWNEsKFhdABLHxmFjozBXnQEa9NvKHCP+gRr2iN0+9G 4XqSrsmTWTqPjPGrBKs1wIai1/sO+i/SqOl8mb3PJoIStrtjfHcM2Y1xq9sBqVrhxHEE +5Sw==
X-Received: by 10.66.139.201 with SMTP id ra9mr7141576pab.153.1443645404542; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dino-macbook.wp.comcast.net (173-8-188-29-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.8.188.29]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id eg5sm2335211pac.30.2015.09.30.13.36.43 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <560C3A74.80808@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:36:40 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1DA97E7A-E11E-4C21-9B70-8BF217D62780@gmail.com>
References: <3C2AD973-A1F7-4C84-B8D5-31BAA8371CA5@gmail.com> <560C3A74.80808@cisco.com>
To: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/U5n5WYx6S867R31TxQJetgrA7mk>
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:36:49 -0000

> 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