Re: [lisp] LISP SDN

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 19 February 2014 16:56 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 549921A04F1 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:40 -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 3zD1goAUHu4B for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x244.google.com (mail-pa0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4CE1A05C2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f68.google.com with SMTP id kp14so380695pab.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:35 -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=1zQUBCr7Mg19nvRrsdGM1OjK8gk8BB+j6IPnzZuoc5w=; b=sS6q5d1PMzS3POfDlKwYgFTzwYSKRbRV6sN11AG5hWSeqEdZyu5E6hGbAohbGo5iDf BTqx63bk1aE4wezhJR8dtUgTxAfwRM1JTJgdjf/SfKWqtN0ReNHt8BjXB29mUlQc2Vot oG5odsSXJ2+j/SR0qAW0fqowm19Zg5oZ68ZdN/gCSaJ3jLS39EbsFYHrlYOFz9YGYImU 6Rihc09fE7O6Qh434p9tIvxcEnNli4Lap/xGiddauHQRiWC/UGZF/Kz5DzpaE7fxb7ba 51OuvPaYHfV21RHrGwcvZVGgrosaBoDPgChLCclVD0u0E2sxoF1f+lsOHRPGROCWny4Y pIZg==
X-Received: by 10.68.189.100 with SMTP id gh4mr40566367pbc.21.1392828994992; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ug2sm5053448pac.21.2014.02.19.08.56.34 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YHcKGv67R1ATnBg1fqK2tgCx3gftz9q2XL-3L7+K51TEiteQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:33 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FC77B824-AA56-40E2-A50B-641F725CF9D6@gmail.com>
References: <CA+YHcKF5aUK-ADsxaE7W1T9DmkON51LogDdDXVEWTq1jF5tDDA@mail.gmail.com> <240A8B2B-C0BD-40FF-AE40-E8A4C9CF8E2A@gmail.com> <CA+YHcKGv67R1ATnBg1fqK2tgCx3gftz9q2XL-3L7+K51TEiteQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <arnatal@ac.upc.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/X8G6JuWRK_dmC11DuKvYgZE13TE
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP SDN
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:56:40 -0000

> My idea with the draft is to address all the extensions (with all the required technical detail) to enhance LISP+SDN deployments, that's the reason for the name. Please keep in mind that this is just a -00 version and

I understand what you are trying to do but when you say "LISP+SDN" that can mean 100s of things. Here is an example:

(1) I have 1 ITR and 1000 ETRs.
(2) I have 100 groups where there membership is a subset of the 1000 ETRs.
(3) I don't want to do any protocol signalling to allow the ITR to replicate multicast packets for the 100 
groups to the various ETRs.
(4) I have an SDN application that programs the ITR with 100 map-cache entries.

So the above example can be classified as "LISP+SDN" but you, of course, had no intention to cover that in your draft. My point being is that you need to GET SPECIFIC.

> most of the content is still to be written. Despite the fact that the text now refers mostly to flow aspects, my intention is to address other points (such Publish/Subscribe mechanism, etc) on the near future.

Publish means that ETRs register 5-tuples to the mapping system. Subscribe means that ITRs send Map-Requests to find RLOC-records for those 5-tuples.

Unless you use specific language like I did above just saying "Pub/Sub" can mean dozens of things.

> I would prefer to keep all SDN related stuff here to avoid the proliferation of drafts. If in the future we see

What is the "SDN related stuff" mean?

> that some parts (like what you call "LISP granular map-caches") require too much technical detail, then we should consider the spin-off of those parts to different drafts and keep this draft as a "SDN umbrella" (as Michiel suggested).

If you take the details of the granular map-cache out of this spec, then what is the spec covering?

> At this point this draft is a tool to work on all the SDN specific aspects of LISP and to generate some discussion.
> 
> Let's talk in London ;)

Where is the spec on SDN specific aspects of BGP and OSPF? There isn't any because it doesn't make sense.

Can someone else clarify this if you think I'm missing something?

Dino