Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt
Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 15:20 UTC
Return-Path: <lucy.yong@huawei.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 CDD3C11E8147; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.479
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ghXuWQ1iGqsI; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C676C11E8139; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AYE90295; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:20:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:19:10 +0100
Received: from DFWEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.134) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:19:55 +0100
Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.209]) by dfweml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.134]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:19:48 -0700
From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Thread-Topic: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOuTi8w5pwSVEYQ0qg6kqZJksbCJnVAG4Q
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:19:47 +0000
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452D14F6@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20130924150710.B45F118C094@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <03BB71ED-C05D-4421-8A0F-930EAEB6EFAE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <03BB71ED-C05D-4421-8A0F-930EAEB6EFAE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.138.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:20:28 -0000
+1. LISP is the LISP. Lucy -----Original Message----- From: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 10:14 AM To: Noel Chiappa Cc: nvo3@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] [lisp] New Version Notification for draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-00.txt For what's it worth (and for the record), I would not tradeoff the nonce for a protocol-ID. The data-plane features in LISP are far more important IMO then a protocol demux field we may never need to use. Dino On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:07 AM, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: > {This is mostly to the LISP WG; NVO3 - which I candidly admit to > knowing almost nothing about, but which I justt joined - may or may > not care. Sorry this goes on for a bit, but this is important. I hope > people will take the time to read it - it's not _that_ long.} > > >> From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci at gmail.com> > >> the P-bit is being proposed for LISP. > > For those who missed what this was all about (I sure did), there is a new ID: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-00 > "LISP Generic Protocol Extension" > > As a personal ID, this ID was not automagically announced to the LISP > WG; I only happened to just see it when I was updating the LISP > bibliography this weekend. > > May I suggest that in the future, anyone posting a personal draft > _send a message to the WG_ - for people who are not subscibed to the > full ID announcement feed (I'm not, it's way too much traffic, 97% of > which I don't care about); otherwise, many people will have no idea that it's there. > > Even better, run the basic idea through the WG _before_ you write the > draft; it may have a major flaw (as this one, I believe, does), or it > may be a direction we just don't want to go (in which case there's no > use putting in the effort to write an ID). > > > To briefly let people know what this is about, it allows carriage of > non-IP packets in LISP. This, I think, is basically a very good idea. > > However, the particular proposal in this ID is, IMO, very badly > flawed. It proposes to take over the field used to carry i) the nonce > (for neighbour xTR reachability detection), and ii) the version of the > mapping entry, and use that field to carry the Ethertype. > > Obviously, then, since one _cannot_ carry a non-IP packet without > making it _impossible_ to perform either of these functions: if only > non-IP traffic is being carried over a particular link, these two > (important, IMO) control functions will be _permanently_ disabled. > > I don't believe this is acceptable. > > >>> From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong at huawei.com> > >>> Regarding to the protocol evolution, does this mean that >>> nonce/map-version features in LISP will be deprecated? >>> IMO: Having the same field overloaded for many differen[t] purposes >>> is not good way for the protocol evolution, it becomes messy. > > Yes and no. The engineering analysis on this sort of thing is subtle. > > With a limited length header, if you have several control functions > that do not need to be applied _on every packet_, I think it's > reasonable to share a field between them. One does have to carefully > look at the functions to decide if they really are things that one doesn't have to do on every packet. > > The thing is that putting a separate field in for every possible > function will make the header a lot longer, which will have an impact > on overhead (somewhat problematic), and also MTU (even more > problematic, especially if MTU Discovery is not working properly). > > I am given to understand that a number of organizations have hardware > which looks at the first two 32-bit words, so unfortunately making the > header longer is not available as a _short-term_ answer. > > (Although I think we're just about reaching the limits of what we can > cram into a 2-word header, so it's probably time to start thinking > about a longer > one.) > > >> It means that the features need to be traded off. So the >> market/user-base will decide what it wants to use that field for. > > I have to tell you that I just about fell off my chair when I realized > what you were saying here. > > I don't believe that is professionally acceptable to force users to > chose between i) carrying non-IP traffic, and ii) having some > important control functions available. > > I understand that in the real world there are constraints, so we can't > necessarily 'clean sheet of paper' the answer; but at the same time, > surely it is not beyond our wit to find an answer that doesn't force > users into making that choice. > > > I have some ideas on what to do here (technically), but before I > launch into them I would like to hear if the WG agrees with me that > this 'tradeoff' is unacceptable. > > Because, clearly, if the WG is happy with this, there's no point in my > bringing up alternatives. > > Noel > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- [lisp] FW: [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Noel Chiappa
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Fabio Maino
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Roger Jørgensen
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)
- Re: [lisp] [nvo3] New Version Notification for dr… Lucy yong