Subject: Re: [lisp] #8: Limits on "Gleaned" Map Entries Not Clear

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:43:06 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>

    >> The reason we put data gleaning in the spec is because we talked to
    >> hosting providers that wanted to reduce the additional delay in
    >> returning packets to client sites.
    >> .. if they send any type of Map-Request, being it verifying or a
    >> regular one, it adds delay.
    >> ...
    >> We have heard from enterprise sites who want to run LISP internally to
    >> their branch offices, would use this feature *without* the verifying
    >> step.

    > Then let's remove it.

No, because, as Dino points out, there are a number of potential early
adoptets to whoom it is important. We can't afford to blow off early adopters.

A lot of the larger entities which have been talked to have some very sharp
technical people 'on team', and so concerns that they have expressed have
been taken very seriously - it's not just that they are users, and you have
to make the users happy, it's also that they are pretty sharp, and may have
good points.

    > I agree with you that it is not useful in the Internet environment, 

I'm not sure I follow this statement (from either you or Dino). What exactly
is meant by "hosting providers that wanted to reduce the additional delay ...
to client sites"? I'm assuming these providers, and their clients, are
generic HPs and their users, who would indeed be out there in the ordinary
Internet.

    > it significantly complicates the security analysis

Well, yes and no. We can debate the size of the hold (my message last night
was an attempt to do that), but no matter what size it is, there is a simple
fix (increasing the nonce size).

    > once we actually have a security model we'll probably end up removing
    > it then.

Down the road, perhaps. But one still must get to mile-post 1, before we can
plan what to do at mile-post 10. Hence my concern for the concerns of early
adopters.

	Noel

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:02:20 -0400

> adoptets to whoom it is important. We can't afford to blow off early  

There are a lot of early adopters who insist that we do what,  
exactly?  Who are these early adopters?  Is it possible to get them to  
state their requirements to the WG, so that we can discuss the best  
way to meet them, rather than stating their requirements as a need for  
a specific solution?

Margaret