IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Wed, 17 February 2016 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.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 E4C0A1A6F30 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:33:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 CmTpCg6cWcCw for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 530241A21BE for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id a4so33537853wme.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:33:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KHqEsjOyag8bq80P4r9LSTby0RGp2KGZmY/x7VX7Gew=; b=lOr2EggNBU8h2EEkviBOai3yUtnZCMkwiNT3RnsIaMD5rmG1S5XxahxIcsmV5MNRrE EgXqiGDzmm0MmNZXGGnxgUBcAU00jofvJFxhMj3rNe1JSLIY6w6aHJ3K5XwTD9h2OZl0 /95cag/pWon5tz2ERqSCqd/NtH4Qa6QJTLcXpwHaWqqk07ooKc08z1KiVq+w1jpFkxUx xZs4+zqyb0D2Mz7SsQBYlQP7bVrJi8NijLBQBjpZaJ1oiCHarTjSh8q74V8K1Jgdi4Pi /y9Gi0Y9mX6nvRwACdZYRJmED837HmAWrtqMbZshR1b0EI7y+Qm5VarnkoQ08KazBgd3 auPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=KHqEsjOyag8bq80P4r9LSTby0RGp2KGZmY/x7VX7Gew=; b=JOhGjsVDIjTfLFB5CCwtH+v3BP1S6Mi9ajgxPQQPDO644lDSJ8/If4ua1YVOkLypZC E3klFcqJM3Ulz/1c+ofOJrPGejPQ3Kl6O6eKtA/XBHjpSleqt5G3QgoCfALnjt3/spew oTYW9B2A1+zSYkcKj14Cq0B1+MqZ7Leta7gMhTxkX7Dp+hJ4CFPqo7izBzo6ACP2CyS0 LNtQ0He2VgP4WDuG54NL2e+jOSW4jgmujW4x0newOEIg8du8SkBB04pXfXChPYx+3poi M2riFofvcttLwYD9xJkW7kg/94bBE0h5F+e795RIKXmfgMNX0gGlHcX0+QyPCYaxHU1Q AVbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQEakUFR8TsNuovFTGtjFdsUiqpKZIfpKNzlCTV02E5mTwyGy1exvxDxt7m8o9f0A==
X-Received: by 10.28.97.135 with SMTP id v129mr26620479wmb.90.1455723184810; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2003:8:10:8500:5818:6f98:89bc:d05e? ([2003:8:10:8500:5818:6f98:89bc:d05e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v22sm3635648wmv.12.2016.02.17.07.33.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <D2E9E832.110CF8%aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:33:00 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9247B517-B152-4E7B-B2F5-A061A6375DDA@gigix.net>
References: <20160215224046.28084.69566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C8A2608-7564-4190-9CE6-698024EB9564@gigix.net> <D2E86D11.1108DC%aretana@cisco.com> <56C396A6.1080506@joelhalpern.com> <D2E90B2F.110B96%aretana@cisco.com> <CAKFn1SF1Q7OtKQa=pA4JLDe4fCGm+M3TUGHMT+5fRUGeZkQQ_Q@mail.gmail.com> <D2E9E832.110CF8%aretana@cisco.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/r44rtojiBMkz1J4wBPfK4SSc0K8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@ietf.org>, "lisp-chairs@ietf.org" <lisp-chairs@ietf.org>, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 17 Feb 2016 15:33:15 -0000

Hi,

I have a clarification question:

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 15:31, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> In this case I would assume people would want to look at the impact of the
> lookup -- is non-LISP traffic penalized?  How much?  Does having a
> separate router processing help?  Is it significant?
> 
> Answering questions like that would identify whether, for that scenario,
> having the block of addresses made a difference or not.  If, for example,
> the penalty was huge and using the block reduced it significantly, then it
> helps the case for an extended (maybe even permanent allocation).  OTOH,
> if the performance is about the same, then maybe that doesn't justify
> anything.  The other potential outcome is that experience was gathered,
> but that the results are still inconclusive and more experience is needed,
> maybe justifying an extension.

Who would provide such results to the IESG? The community at large? The LISP WG?

And in which form? An I-D? Presentation? 


thanks

Luigi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email