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 601181AD428
 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  5 Dec 2014 09:36:49 -0800 (PST)
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 HvtByUxzQQIh for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Fri,  5 Dec 2014 09:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 771A01AD489
 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri,  5 Dec 2014 09:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rd3so1077565pab.28
 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:36:40 -0800 (PST)
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=94cIvbyuWOoUCamO83nfQHqmgn20k1+dl29YtHRiCqM=;
 b=aEWKDw7ZuX4Y/VnOHBaoupFiAzelWZtWgzf62t9Ha8vrDM2sJxnRbKkJFN3uB2zYvT
 a+dAcgR1Q9yohwmSCAWpotHhsqsb4Ay2U2LHxeuA4pSlvqcNm9Z/qv0U5X8WE9syAH7S
 BOWVwKB23ZjNkk3m/aOudwRjRcKsIn5t8ynLcr7u+h/YzEr58x7t+wyAgJkaqN6ftffG
 m9GC4wBtOZjw0sMrEpbu8JLKcoQD9D06ALE4PPjSRwg/lncb6KnBqmBKzVhwygPyenpr
 SlJhclpPfkp0I/3pyZgKFeQlfKe+jJ0F7NOAXdRSrR1fRw+DoXEA/AWFYfRcUch2TAMk
 expw==
X-Received: by 10.68.134.164 with SMTP id pl4mr37099736pbb.128.1417801000702; 
 Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.132] ([207.145.253.66])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pg9sm29619642pdb.71.2014.12.05.09.36.39
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5481DCB6.6070300@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:36:38 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B8414A88-F630-4FC3-A2FC-05235D78D483@gmail.com>
References: <D35D7CD0-20E5-4210-8025-7C92441DD339@gigix.net>
 <5480B13C.4090203@cisco.com> <97DA0D20-84D3-4478-8F90-C033E67172CD@gmail.com>
 <5481DCB6.6070300@cisco.com>
To: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Un4LAoxf729AfUHCOeK4Lmxf7JE
Cc: lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Dec 2014 17:36:49 -0000

> Hi Dino,
> I have no problems with the control plane part. An encap with =
multiprotocol support would allow to do IPsec encap before LISP encap, =
and could be used with the unauthenticated DH mechanism that you =
propose.

Well draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 with LISP-SEC can give you an =
authenticated DH mechanism as well.

> I do really think that the LISP WG should not miss the encap debate, =
and drive the transition to a format that=20

Well I think we should monitor it but also not get distracted by it.=20

The LISP WG has a control-plane that others may use. We should create =
laser focus on control-plane features and scale. The latter being most =
important.

> lends itself to the various use cases that are being envisioned (and =
that IMO should become the main focus of the WG asap). There's quite a =
broad support behind VXLAN-GPE, and LISP-GPE is an opportunity for LISP =
to=20

There is broad support among other data center encapsulations as well. =
The point is being focused mostly on data center and not holistically.

> capitalize on that support and maintain some backward compatibility =
with the current LISP encap and features.

The marketplace is confused about overlays right now in the data center. =
It is the vendors that are confusing matters by having (1) so many =
data-planes that can't interoperate in a multi-vendor network, and (2) =
coupled with separate and vertical control-planes that also don't =
interoperate with each other.

The risk is that operators may give up on overlays because the vendor =
community is all over the place. Or simply just roll their own with =
properitary SDN controller solutions.

Dino