IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05.txt - Decoupling

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Sat, 11 October 2014 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
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 2B6661A0350 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 p5blzOMSv_8O for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0760.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:760]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A0B1A0305 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:54:07 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.91]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.91]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:54:07 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <arnatal@ac.upc.edu>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Florin Coras <fcoras@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05.txt - Decoupling
Thread-Index: AQHP4tHZSWwBqqoS6k+d2YkcVzseJJwl35oAgACgHQCABP+SMA==
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:54:07 +0000
Message-ID: <66955a49886045589ca568d9166968c9@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <da742ef87a964895b755294837b989f4@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5194B6B9-0F51-47EF-AC33-155F47399AA4@gmail.com> <8b220ca159a447a194d19dc536db3f0c@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <E321E09E-18AB-4149-A7D8-0AC27366F985@gmail.com> <8A3FAEEC-98D6-4E32-AB12-7B8E3418752C@gigix.net> <CA+YHcKF-f-q8k0=dRNjhVW2oJzJ=rJfdNau8G9KSN=yiNJENQA@mail.gmail.com> <95F2B24F-854A-4A09-8FB1-EF1025DE2A5F@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <95F2B24F-854A-4A09-8FB1-EF1025DE2A5F@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB444;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0361212EA8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(377454003)(199003)(51914003)(24454002)(189002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(15975445006)(74316001)(31966008)(86362001)(87936001)(2171001)(105586002)(92566001)(33646002)(2656002)(95666004)(99286002)(106116001)(97736003)(106356001)(21056001)(120916001)(20776003)(107886001)(66066001)(93886004)(99396003)(107046002)(85306004)(64706001)(4396001)(108616004)(46102003)(80022003)(40100003)(230783001)(101416001)(76576001)(76176999)(76482002)(122556002)(85852003)(54356999)(50986999)(2501002)(77096002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB444; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/f26eLPfKVqh_kfgC8FBCfQravkY
Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05.txt - Decoupling
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: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:54:34 -0000

Folks,

Thanks for the good dialog regarding "decoupling" and "isolation". So far, I glean the following from the email thread:

- LISP decouples the forwarding and control plane, so draft-ietf-lisp-introduction is correct
- LISP does not isolate the control plane from the forwarding plane, so RFC 6830 is also correct

Because both statements are correct and architecturally significant, they *both* should appear in Section 2.1 of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction. Ideally, these two statements should be juxtaposed to one another in order to highlight the difference between "isolation" and "decoupling".

Each statement should include:
	1)  A title (i.e., Decoupled data and control-plane, Non-isolation between data and control plane)
	2)  A sentence or two explaining what it means to be decoupled or non-isolated
	3) A cost/benefit statement

                                                                                      Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisp [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Darrel Lewis
> (darlewis)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:07 PM
> To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
> Cc: Damien Saucez; lisp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-05.txt - Decoupling
> 
> 
> On Oct 8, 2014, at 1:34 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <arnatal@ac.upc.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think is fair to state in the intro document that data- and control- planes
> are "decoupled" in LISP because their instantiation may run on different
> boxes, but they are not "isolated" because LISP data plane can trigger control
> plane activity.
> >
> > I think this is an excellent way to describe it.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> -Darrel
> 
> 
> >
> > Alberto
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email