IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Thu, 04 June 2015 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rcallon@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 2861D1A88C4 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 fPW655QAO9a2 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0756.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::756]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 963DC1A879B for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.152) by BY1PR0501MB1431.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.107.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.172.22; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:16:01 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.152]) by BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.107.152]) with mapi id 15.01.0172.012; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:16:01 +0000
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02
Thread-Index: AQHQmgu7Z9e6Ul6hM0e5dxjOHTDbvp2XwQAwgAKwDQCAAR0/0IAAS7MAgAArDICAAHXbAIAAAkMg
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:16:00 +0000
Message-ID: <BY1PR0501MB14307EBCD2711B365EAAD618A5B30@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <96CCC975-4D04-46F4-ABA9-D5BF6A77C451@gigix.net> <1F6A3E9B-62E7-4B5D-99F3-2DE6AC0FB13F@gigix.net> <BY1PR0501MB14301C95C338B693B870DCEBA5B60@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <199AEC90-B132-4493-BB7D-E3088093F222@gigix.net> <BY1PR0501MB143061359489A70478CFC14FA5B30@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <82E787F8-1BD1-4F2F-A286-227873019288@gmail.com> <1D2F1DE4-A8F4-4998-8BBE-7307AAD1467D@gigix.net> <54754D2F-C2F6-4CA3-BC61-EE0F8A8CF446@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54754D2F-C2F6-4CA3-BC61-EE0F8A8CF446@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rcallon@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1431;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY1PR0501MB14314F8527D193C7D09ADCC5A5B30@BY1PR0501MB1431.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(520003)(3002001); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1431; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1431;
x-forefront-prvs: 0597911EE1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(189002)(199003)(377454003)(24454002)(19300405004)(19609705001)(87936001)(2656002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(86362001)(93886004)(106356001)(99286002)(46102003)(77156002)(106116001)(92566002)(105586002)(62966003)(16236675004)(5002640100001)(102836002)(15975445007)(2950100001)(2900100001)(40100003)(68736005)(122556002)(19625215002)(33656002)(230783001)(66066001)(64706001)(76576001)(101416001)(5001860100001)(50986999)(81156007)(54356999)(76176999)(5001830100001)(5001920100001)(107886002)(5001960100002)(4001540100001)(97736004)(5001770100001)(189998001)(74316001)(18717965001)(4001430100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1431; H:BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY1PR0501MB14307EBCD2711B365EAAD618A5B30BY1PR0501MB1430_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jun 2015 15:16:00.6380 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1431
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/u7l_VAy33jXEs-3odi6WQx-60Nc>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:16:24 -0000

The text that we seem to be converging on (“…and requires some new functionality such as OAM enhancements and EID to RLOC mapping”) mentions OAM as an *example* of new functionality, and does not claim to have a complete list of new functionality.

Thus to me “RLOC reachability detection” is also a valid example of a new functionality, and may in fact be a better example of a “new functionality” than “OAM” would be (since all networks have always required some form of “OAM”, but not all networks require some form of “RLOC reachability detection”).

Thus it seems fine to me to replace “OAM” with “RLOC reachability” in the proposed text.

Ross

From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:03 AM
To: Luigi Iannone
Cc: Ross Callon; LISP mailing list list
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02

Parenthesizing "OAM" would be fine with the text I suggest.

Dino

On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net<mailto:ggx@gigix.net>> wrote:

On 04 Jun 2015, at 07:26, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com<mailto:farinacci@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net<mailto:rcallon@juniper.net>> wrote:

Does this sound about right?

I think the text you suggest is fine. But we haven't ever used the term "OAM" before. I would like all the documentation to be consistent so would suggest using "RLOC reach ability mechanisms”.

Hi Dino,

I understand your point, but may be OAM is a more general term that covers the RLOC reachability case.

yet, if it is fine with Ross I guess we can use “RLOC reachability”.

ciao

L.




Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email