Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 18:33 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 A639A1A1B5B for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 XzS0hgDnG8h0 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x234.google.com (mail-pd0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6D31A6FC6 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w10so3257733pde.25 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:03 -0800 (PST)
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=dKpE2nJTb5hRbhi7mWVhSJlY711Ig1tYLYZWdQurJ1s=; b=QJAtlGSUkCwR05e6ncRHhgPaBrL2gyBiG082BhI8jEEk+9P9ya0V8I5Cji88me8ywV zV9j3SKAm+2e0DR/KqdbhFIpheYNWOkRP4gWjZi8uKDLgXeRRWfT6erAErvNhukv3Ejn GgAgVKuCHHjszMXdwxTxqaidjsh3Tz62P8z4D6mtDbWwLalh4RSFyKqQaMfSpPeTcISE lFeqtsvSH5KbQC17szSucgDmgsW72gSi4b8PV0ulDl2pKEnqqiDndfHzGe9EyiZrC1vC NQQdae/4JS0wgF1Ng+yfW9bgAtY0U/O33cIYEM7F6Uaq0snlgTBfPmS99UBLI8uRvqio IlFg==
X-Received: by 10.66.161.103 with SMTP id xr7mr9396774pab.141.1418236382979; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id uq15sm2373255pab.8.2014.12.10.10.33.01 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141210103301974277.9ad80225@sniff.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:33:01 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67605561-BDA3-4BD6-B34B-ED01A4E1AD6B@gmail.com>
References: <D35D7CD0-20E5-4210-8025-7C92441DD339@gigix.net> <5480B13C.4090203@cisco.com> <97DA0D20-84D3-4478-8F90-C033E67172CD@gmail.com> <5481DCB6.6070300@cisco.com> <B8414A88-F630-4FC3-A2FC-05235D78D483@gmail.com> <54822778.6050505@cisco.com> <AFBC926D-FBCF-46DD-81AF-AF936D4B36DE@gmail.com> <20141210103301974277.9ad80225@sniff.de>
To: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/sZeLHYztgJ-awsrhHid8T-AkCr8
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption
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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:33:07 -0000

> Hello Dino,
> 
> you mentioned in another email
> 
>> The LISP WG has a control-plane that others may use. We should create laser 
> focus on
>> control-plane features and scale. The latter being most important.
> 
> I like the ideas in your crypto draft but the data header aspect ... could 
> you change this to a set of requirements your draft has for the data header 
> and drop the explicit header layout instead?
> 
> This would give the draft the focus on the control plane and we keep the 
> details of the data header open.

Well I think that would create an incomplete draft. How about I keep it in and indicate there are other ways to pass a key-id with other encapsulation formats?

Thanks for your comments,
Dino

> 
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 19:06:47 -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> extension of the encap (as well as of the control plane, if needed) to 
>>> address various LISP use cases.
>> 
>> I do like to see a list of requirements that requires changes to LISP 
>> encapsulation. 
>> 
>> LISP-GPE adds no new functionality. NSH can be done without packet 
>> encapsulation from any overlay protocol. 
>> 
>>> In my experience when customers see the benefit of overlays (LISP in my 
>>> case) they tend jump on it... but you know this way better than me :-) 
>>> It's our responsibility as a WG to clear up the confusion about 
>>> encapsulations.
>> 
>> Well adding new encapsulation to the mix doesn't clear up confusion. It 
>> adds to it. 
>> 
>> Dino
>> _______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>>