[lisp] LISP Intro document

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Fri, 14 November 2014 03:06 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 716461A1B6C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:06:28 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 vXBrQneTnq26 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0131.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 593E21A1B9C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.16.15; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:06:20 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.170]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.170]) with mapi id 15.01.0016.006; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:06:20 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: LISP Intro document
Thread-Index: Ac//t8RTMSrExoC1Q+O80QOxt280Vg==
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:06:20 +0000
Message-ID: <05eaa65da57a4242be4ae477acff7185@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB442;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB442;
x-forefront-prvs: 03950F25EC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(199003)(189002)(64706001)(122556002)(40100003)(77156002)(229853001)(86362001)(74316001)(31966008)(105586002)(4396001)(108616004)(66066001)(92566001)(20776003)(99396003)(106356001)(99286002)(95666004)(107886001)(107046002)(120916001)(2656002)(46102003)(87936001)(450100001)(62966003)(21056001)(101416001)(97736003)(54356999)(33646002)(50986999)(77096003)(110136001)(76576001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB442; 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/pWhJK0O9EekOyKNiuaRnj276tsE
Subject: [lisp] LISP Intro document
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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:06:28 -0000

Folks,

The following paragraph isn't worded very well:

  The initial motivation in the LISP effort is to be find in the	
 	   routing scalability problem [RFC4984], where, if LISP is completely	
 	   deployed, the Internet core is populated with RLOCs while Traffic	
 	   Engineering mechanisms are pushed to the Mapping System.  Where RLOCs	
 	   are quasi-static (i.e., low churn) and hence, the routing system	
 	   scalable [Quoitin] while EIDs can roam anywhere with no churn to the	
 	   underlying routing system.  However, the separation between location	
 	   and identity that LISP offers makes it suitable for use in additional	
 	   scenarios such as Traffic Engineering (TE), multihoming, and mobility	
 	   among others.

The point I meant to make was:

-	Back in 2007, LISP's initial motivation was to reduce the size of routing tables in the global internet
-	When the LISP transition period ends, LISP will make routing tables shrink. Global routing tables will contain RLOCs only. The LISP mapping system will contain EIDs and EID/RLOC mappings
-	During a transition period, when PxTRs leak EIDs into the global routing system, it is not known whether LISP will make global routing tables grow or shrink or stay the same


Ron Bonica