Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

Dino Farinacci <> Mon, 05 March 2018 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CD1124B18 for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:35:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LakTnufBfYeV for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95E6B1204DA for <>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d9-v6so2911642plo.8 for <>; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:35:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7QtqK1C+UeX14Vrm6inigyeBeGbOSC1FyS+D5aQWFlk=; b=tcId9jCHv6ZohL351nmKmCDA0CTAlsKn+ylbxadgGowzrZBdupJj0XEGnKjEurDaJy b6bf0iL79UKF6YF0jJmDNY6/7FfplGbYXzNweOKYhuEYLkqokOz9vVzhLgcwCRPbjCv2 Vx0R7RryyKhF0PYeuVTbrI0aHC4y9vADx11kFLz5iMIWEf5QmFfluJb89ZARUDDrmkyY Pj9GWHwCpmv94/DNoeTBvUAqAO6QynZNBVED4FH1uLTScFM2/SUIV9dyXo2s2Q/vMPm8 NuwJDUdxVygzqE6q1L2OpFIZZU4PJfAMlfmsMCYL3tcdnxRQgiNlCFhifb5c1/wfBIfH bKyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7QtqK1C+UeX14Vrm6inigyeBeGbOSC1FyS+D5aQWFlk=; b=gyJhUTGWRQx10YCsmXnNSxPrBSmUkjuocyVJgIhD/u6xyG8kAAU4SJcDG5iPYvdznh abofxPtauHU7nnuWafakKM6QL4e9x/pAhfMhjMm1dTKvHN2OijEWHCy2mSXh7XbVpIlr WdYpaI/J65OV3y1qcXmxQAuq/kVRgw6efaOil6NdwGsQKMoYybxWG8utKq3apq2OBsyH Pq23kg1Cl8qlCpmi1vN2MKjte4K923Y3tERN5SsF4tiQUMkFWUlAZ5r12XYSnr5BMfSc YZj3xyXm5s+UITKbnUvRax77osaycXlY98F7lK+t8/iSjc7Ue/PYdKovPAwjoHCBYhyt uA3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAWkJQlATJYx6gdSKPeX9lCtGvHEigQdDZwjuoFIjNwCfS9JJOv 9G2Cen7bzgbAhBqXQmWaUhQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsaPJabndLWWi9z/4wNxkgV1blxNkFNDU6YrlMDqwV5HeQfcY6eMCqquqIylgb6SZm7wud9Tw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a981:: with SMTP id bh1-v6mr13663964plb.298.1520282103087; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id e25sm24684585pfn.67.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Dino Farinacci <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:35:00 -0800
Cc: Albert Cabellos <>, Albert Cabellos <>, " list" <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Luigi Iannone <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 20:35:05 -0000

>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci <> wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
>>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
>>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this text will go.
>> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.
> Nobody wants to lose valuable text.

Glad you feel that way.

>> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to lose it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.
> That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM document, without any change in the text.
> Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
> This is an half an hour task. 

But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the co-authors (Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833.

So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus.

>> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t make any change.
> Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document.
> If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task. Authorship will be anyway preserved.

Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of how EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are already documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t go in an OAM document. 

Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the Deployment RFC.

Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an OAM document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are other OAM mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM document.

This will not take 1/2 hour.

And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We have already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane text. We achieved that goal from the charter.