IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases

farinacci@gmail.com Sat, 15 August 2015 22:03 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 19D5E1B29F6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 OyBxH_1Yu2VU for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C35021B29F5 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacrr5 with SMTP id rr5so82591544pac.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
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=dzwKOzvWpA+6MeaVTzMorzsotCze/5+4PTdb7iVj8yI=; b=R5Dbl4zPsXhMKovmJfJfeGcdQ6txJUhNyqUiiWxRXeFWLpKss8QQ6pW3gGTkfAdl4s +mnGIc1yZeqYmSM8dNBGkXFtnrBZSIb6Y0gm1vwegimRlRNvtY8pf/cSuxjL5AiRHmWr bs9iJreLGWsVkXIG18glhtEz7i17X2rbj9/uBhRCM2RDg+A4Mx8gchQwaR6V62MHsDja Y/zTDPQpgmuiouXU18/1pi5gctLXDlaCgjryV2IhLGnS2IeF4Evl4tfy7SdeJaMsPHyn Fs/MHWGvf26WoFpbfrlVpa2Zx1kP5woCpRku0wXpsfeV26NgbD+E3CtBhpSA4DGVpnUr 0v+A==
X-Received: by 10.66.65.106 with SMTP id w10mr100833495pas.111.1439676203292; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.86] (adsl-76-254-33-203.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [76.254.33.203]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dm6sm9765775pdb.36.2015.08.15.15.03.22 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-84B4BE0A-615E-462F-8631-AE74EA243ED2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: farinacci@gmail.com
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H321)
In-Reply-To: <C92EE070-B694-44AE-B273-4E6BBBA70C05@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:20 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com>
References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <B1A519EE-2953-4BD2-920C-45AA21617147@gmail.com> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <CAHANBtK5WKh-9Ljw98JwtsAc3qtgzkMu1wuZE4a3nKmOerLJTA@mail.gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <CAHANBtLNmXuub6Y7P1v497rGWN9TvMak7y9S_beYW6xHwkg5-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C92EE070-B694-44AE-B273-4E6BBBA70C05@gmail.com>
To: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/ptznWxirgjbHuQ4TJqjKz84i9aI>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases
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: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:03:26 -0000

The logic follows like this:

If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support is required. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch subnets. If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If broadcast frame support is needed, then multicast support on the overlay is needed. 

And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, homenet, or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required. 

Dino

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothetical requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new version ?
> 
> Damien Saucez 
> 
>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case.
>> 
>> Agree
>> 
>> Stig
>> 
>> >
>> > Dino
>> >
>> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobility.
>> > >
>> > > Stig
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email