Re: [lisp] Call for Adoption: draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15.txt

Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com> Wed, 07 September 2022 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A39C14F73B for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 18:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=getnexar.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mr7PwaJ2G7dT for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 18:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2226C14F742 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 18:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id az27so18015691wrb.6 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 18:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=getnexar.com; s=google; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ucgOEz+vdNsWDoWWULOXZryA+QADfceK55RQZc/U/UE=; b=aO1mvT+d6DO/5/RVW3pn829I37uEuwLKSU1BMCY/PnUrwHU/6aIO2D5Y7SzIiccilS LPx/FS7HVQDAEkjm9cvmYH7Jo2/t9pdE+Ii00AD6OyC4BK9IPjk+wkyyRYHmNlHzREEK pEC5QOFLPKFr3MyU4/J8y3whLh9ai9KI3DOXk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date; bh=ucgOEz+vdNsWDoWWULOXZryA+QADfceK55RQZc/U/UE=; b=tGhzzYrBz9VHDAjJgHIUTNIjWCt+1BfTuMGj/MIadWJ2s+akECHZU21lWD3z0XQrlg OBk6UH0U0BDQqc42IY5mal9o840zKJ32OfrEYUryhU+8UXf6pWmjlB60gdb2gEEuH2Gu 8JqScTKa6aLt9PsulyZc6acs6ozlIP6vh3KxZOHbnWlWjJYCTbdfADOa9uxT8XHxtBy2 21V/SqTesIGUUjyMInOdoCvquqZYAQS0vtjIE05K/17QCUj+yJ+0UYYtFtERoziaRLgU HEl3VgTAszsP7JW2ouOH8nuVC3cBs9cxZFPEFTeycpbXFG5Qb6VFkHif1vI35hLZ5T8a edGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1v3uXk/B8hNmXJ/azasWBono/Du6SO7Ef8uD1RgGYDUTJ789xM JqlMaHin1JLxG73w0tPtIX0TQA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5ohHnSuaR5m9xnG4ZIBX1gHhkzqleweXJNxMP3V/jwNEZ8VXtjNbEJCF8RmkkjlQcK8Hl6pw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5b1c:0:b0:226:fe54:cd52 with SMTP id bx28-20020a5d5b1c000000b00226fe54cd52mr534191wrb.417.1662514220894; Tue, 06 Sep 2022 18:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([46.120.74.133]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15-20020adff60f000000b00228d7078c4esm5296295wrp.4.2022.09.06.18.30.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Sep 2022 18:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>
In-Reply-To: <ADCE3863-AF15-4C2A-84C9-CE2DB4186154@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 04:30:17 +0300
Cc: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org
Message-Id: <2D3F7BF5-2E97-4C02-ADFC-732B92B94CCB@getnexar.com>
References: <ADCE3863-AF15-4C2A-84C9-CE2DB4186154@gmail.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19G82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Vhlq2kTv3y-Yx_c2SMmJH-9WGyw>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for Adoption: draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 07 Sep 2022 01:30:26 -0000

Need to think about it. The active mapping use cases are more lenient than the conditions in the draft. Vehicles roam between cellular providers and P5G hotspots to save on data plan ($1/GB!!).

RTR RLOCs may change or remain, client EIDs change once in a while but for privacy not so much for roaming. Client XTR  (cXTR) RLOCs keep changing because of roaming. Its ok for Uploads because clients control that, but for security RTRs need to expect that. For notifications as well, RTRs need to expect cXTR RLOC changes for push notification replication. 

It relates to broader question  of:

  AAA   - Mapping
           \       /
           XTRs (clients, servers, aggregation)

For application routing top of fluid private-mobile-edge structure, but need to think more.


--szb
Cell: +972.53.2470068
WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794

> On Sep 6, 2022, at 19:54, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sounds good. But I didn't realize your use-case application needed predictive-RLOCs. So I assume you have a requirement to do RLOC handoffs faster than the mapping system. True?
> 
> Dino
> 
>> On Sep 5, 2022, at 7:08 PM, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> Mobility, Anonymity, Predictive, AAA, VPN..
>> All support private-mobile/mobile-edge issues.
>> 
>> LISP basics: given an EID and XTR(s), allow client interaction with a scoped set of EID objects, for a while. 
>> 
>> This solves the application server challenge of cloud to edge migration. Sourcing specific EID dest from client solves low east west capacity between fragmented edges (Gbps not Tbps).
>> 
>> In general application routing helps leverage 
>> low cost, high north south, low east west (compared to carrier rings and cloud datacenter thick trees) .. of private-mobile-edge. LISP has the right base structure, hope wg adopts such charter themes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --szb
>> Cell: +972.53.2470068
>> WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794
>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2022, at 21:45, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we should revisit the charter. 
>>> 
>>> I would also like to give priority for working group drafts that have existed with no apparent direction for many years. Those include:
>>> 
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-mn                            (created 2009!)*
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-te                            (created 2012)*
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport (created 2014)
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-yang                          (created 2015)
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility                  (created 2016)*
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity                 (created 2016)
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs              (created 2016)
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth                    (created 2017)
>>> draft-ietf-lisp-vpn                           (created 2017)*
>>> 
>>> I put a "*" in front of the ones I think should get priority. Note all the above documents are *not* use-case documents but protocol (mechanism) documents.
>>> 
>>> And we need to get some closure on NAT-traversal. At least make draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal a working group document.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 5, 2022, at 3:14 AM, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai=40getnexar.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On a related Note. Wanted to bring up next move on the charter. I think we can all agree that addressable naming like in lisp-nexagon H3 EIDs is part of lisp application edge routing theme that is already active in the wg. This is timely in light of private mobile, and mobile edge compute trends and gaps.
>>>> 
>>>> There are many reasons to factor compute from cloud to edge, latency, capacity, regulation, but mostly cost. There is a very high centralization tax in cloud vs edge as far as margins and energy/cooling bills that can be saved. However its not easy to factor workloads from cloud to edge:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) before any client API reaches an edge service it should be “TSA Pre-checked” who what where this client is and that this specific edge server can address this specific query right now. This is without compromising client privacy and security as there is no wall of application servers shielding clients from services. Neither  is there east-west pinball between fragmented micro services across edge location. LISP routing per named logical addressing for both clients and services are very applicable.
>>>> 
>>>> 2) any edgefied service has to be able to encapsulate logic and state units in portable manner, allow  for elastic allocation across edge servers. During peaks less units per server and more edge locations, and visa verse. There is also need for quick recovery from locations (fragmanted) failures. In this context what comes to mind for edge cloud migration is factoring to edge anything digital-twin. In that sense nexagons are just one example of road-tile twin. And again LISP named routing steering quickly between failed or overflow locations by name location mapping and separation.   
>>>> 
>>>> Wonder what is the chairs, group thinking here.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --szb
>>>> Cell: +972.53.2470068
>>>> WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 2022, at 12:21, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This call for adoption was open for a while now and there were several emails in support of the adoption.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such, there is a clear consensus in adopting this document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The authors are invited to submit a new version of the document renamed as WG item.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks to all people that expressed their opinion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> 
>>>>> L.
>>>>> On 5 Aug 2022 at 17:22 +0200, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The authors of the lisp-name-encoding draft (see below) have requested working group adoption for this document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This email starts a three weeks call for working group adoption of this document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please respond, positively or negatively.  Silence does NOT mean consent.  
>>>>>> Please include explanation / motivation / reasoning for your view.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Luigi & Joel
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 24 Jul 2022, at 17:17, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We have made changes to -15 to address Joel's comments. Thanks to Marc and Joel for their participation and cooperation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to, at this time, request for this draft to be a working group document. I will present the status and changes to -15 at the LISP WG.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Dino
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15.txt
>>>>>>>> Date: July 24, 2022 at 8:15:25 AM PDT
>>>>>>>> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>>>>>>>> Cc: lisp@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: lisp@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>     Title           : LISP Distinguished Name Encoding
>>>>>>>>     Author          : Dino Farinacci
>>>>>>>> Filename        : draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15.txt
>>>>>>>> Pages           : 9
>>>>>>>> Date            : 2022-07-24
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>> This draft defines how to use the AFI=17 Distinguished Names in LISP.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There is also an htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> lisp mailing list
>>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lisp mailing list
>>> lisp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp