IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

otroan@employees.org Wed, 12 April 2017 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7DD12948A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 HgU9qzR6noWu for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7ED6126CF9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2017 14:21:20 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC239D788A; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=bJA5oudupNxCfHb9+5CLpiOcwws=; b= eifmTYF/1mj6kibHK1kqsVIl8m2XtK5yVb3QjcG1INXJ3pbDQR+pUFbFqdLHEagk tdISxYkq0fLjBktG3Bt0MMPQqhWpSdaNMYAYwpXGM7BtTFR8R2jeaQ8Ye7K8QyNL Gyf2TTKJemZyOsvEAkH11t4jAwYidbwnRv2b596ka2s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=V7YB7vMGVIWsia7mF0End0o ad3GtlZYaYDxEN7O0lM42ZZfpiMO45gfkdmHvNf92wbSEO2QE3odl7mcjkXWMW18 3QRw72FvSMyX/q2wIf3PnyUH+qe3pVCqpYi5OrrXqDpqwbgFL1aJ38IDumQ9RRrT lBMaJbq/fEaLCm/847Uw=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90ED5D788E; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C59A94ABB6; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:21:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <C0C91DE8-215F-4C49-9DAF-42267B29A6D9@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_90FEF204-6C5E-461B-BCD9-4CC12C4A9BD7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:21:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQyatWEOxCpnOn8H+SxG=BWM=cBPaXoON6vA7dj7TNqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ietf.org
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <D8F5C737-B01A-4EC8-9175-C4921C0CD69F@consulintel.es> <392D675B-73C4-40D3-81A8-A06907F5581D@employees.org> <3BBFC922-85BD-49B5-B39E-227F191BD48C@consulintel.es> <729244A1-E7AB-4BA0-8B39-A6122D2C32DB@employees.org> <CAD6AjGQyatWEOxCpnOn8H+SxG=BWM=cBPaXoON6vA7dj7TNqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/orledeY8alh8Hxzp2Z31iMEZdpU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:21:22 -0000

> 
> That statement is not quite true. The various mechanisms while largely being built out of the same parts, require quite a bit of glue, testing and additional support for configuration. If you think the conflict around hosts/network DNS recursive resolver configuration is hard, then this is a n-square problem.
> 
> For implementation complexity just compare MAP-T and MAP-E/LW46 in:
> https://git.fd.io/vpp/tree/src/vnet/map
> 
> Has there yet been a substantial (millions of subs) deployment of any of those listed ?  I would not say your metric of subjective complexity is relevant to the current hundreds of millions of subs on v6 or v6-only.
> 
> I think map-t may have had some recent deployment at Jio, but it is not clear to me how much they have used map-t vs DS ... or their v6 numbers in mobile vs landline.

Given that none of these mechanisms are interoperable. And that it is difficult to build an ISP provisioning system that can deal with an arbitrary CPE, and that it is hard to build a CPE that can deal with an ISP offering an arbitrary mechanism. The conclusion really has to be the same as Barbara has for the IPv6 over IPV6 mechanisms... and it follows that there is nothing to gain by adding a list of these mechanisms in a 7084bis document.

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email