Re: [lisp] WG Charter

Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Wed, 01 July 2015 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.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 4ACDA1B2A3F for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 EqauBQcg_ATF for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C26101B2850 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4147; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435776239; x=1436985839; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B3I3+D06cSPKQSwjgnHhAfI4VGbrc8M2Ht0eVW59vD0=; b=LEosWK9HBsN+xC0P2SmwLFQ05tp47GT02tUQDeh8HrGs1dPK1kN8MScB tS8++yO2V8h6X2Hchn+usFXyYE7i5Tjnv1bhJK3zEIUysfdtvLrLYvoQg VgzB1ZQSxYOi8tfy9Yf1T42nBbJGUEol0AsiEIaikhrOTj5ERiTfYtwGv U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DJAwATNJRV/5xdJa1RCoMRVF+9MgmBZAqFeAKBVjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCIBAQEDAQEBATU2CgYLCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMBMGAgEBEAWIDggNzQgBAQEBAQUBAQEBARkEi0qEKWSEKwEEjQaHCothgTqGf4wug10mghEXgXIeMYJIAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,387,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="6259819"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2015 18:43:59 +0000
Received: from [10.24.40.142] ([10.24.40.142]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t61Ihw7G002251 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:43:58 GMT
Message-ID: <55943528.2070409@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 11:44:56 -0700
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lisp@ietf.org
References: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <5593F6A6.9010402@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/hQsyDv_0shAZD8qXdIBO1aDEXIU>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Charter
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: <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, 01 Jul 2015 18:44:04 -0000

Joel, Luigi,
thanks for starting this conversation.

On 7/1/15 7:18 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> One of the things Luigi and I as chairs would like to do in Prague is 
> spend some time discussing among the WG participants what we want to 
> work on going forward.  To enable this, we would like to start 
> discussion on the list.  We will also follow the face to face with a 
> summary to the list and further discussion.
>
> There are two aspects that are related but distinct, so to start this 
> off I want to identify them and ask folks to comment on them separately.
>
> First, there is the question of direction for the basic LISP 
> specification.  We can leave it as it is.  However, folks have asked 
> us about moving it to Proposed Standard.  Based on our reading and 
> discussion with relevant ADs, one path to do this would be to refocus 
> the specification away from the core Internet scaling problems, and 
> instead towards a scalable anxd flexible overlay technology.  This 
> would not change the technical procedures, but would have significnat 
> impact on the descriptive text.
>
> Does the WG think this is a good idea?  If so, do folks want to do it?

I think it is a good idea, and I would be willing to work to make it 
happen. In my experience with LISP deployments over the last few years, 
LISP has brought the most value to the table when used as a scalable, 
flexible, and (I would add to your list of attributes) programmable 
overlay technology.

I suspect this refocusing will make the life of the WG a little simpler, 
as the focus on core internet scaling problems has put the work done 
under a very tight scrutiny, some time making harder to evolve the 
protocol in the direction where a scalable overlay technology should go.

>
> Second, there are a large number of pieces that people have proposed 
> (many with drafts).  There are probably too many to include everything 
> in the charter.  Which things do people think are important for the 
> WG.  In particular, explanations of why particular items are 
> important, and comments pro or con from folks who are not the document 
> authors are particularly useful to the community.  (I doubt that there 
> will be significant negative comment since I have not seen proposals 
> that are bad ideas. However, the WG has to prioritize and choose.)
>

I agree, the new charter should help the WG focusing on LISP 
applications. As you note there have been quite a few proposals, but I 
think they can be summarized in a few areas (and relative use cases):
- LISP VPN (including integration with IPsec)
- NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including support for VM mobility)
- SDN/NFV (including support for service chaining)
- IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure for IoT applications)
- Mobile Node  (LISP-MN mobility)

I think the first 3 areas may drive an important change that, in my 
opinion, the WG should consider to include in the charter: how to 
support a multi-protocol encapsulation that allows integration with 
IPsec, support for L2 overlays, and support for explicit tagging and 
end-to-end metadata. With NVO3 selecting VXLAN-GPE as one of the 
supported encapsulations, and given the striking similarities with the 
LISP encap, I think the new drafts should be required to support both 
LISP and VXLAN-GPE encapsulations, as the LISP-GPE draft is trying to 
suggest.

There are a lot of common attributes for an overlay technology that 
works  across the areas described above. It's hard to make a priority, 
but probably the first 3 are the ones where the group can make quicker 
progress. It's also true that IoT and LISP-MN are probably the areas 
with the greatest potential. Rather than making the charter exclusive, I 
would try to leave the door open. We can use milestones to prioritize 
the initial focus, but at least the WG has a way to later add work in 
those areas.

Thanks,
Fabio



> Yours,
> Joel
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp