Subject: [lisp] #34: Editorial Issues Section 8 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt raised by Dimitri Papadimitriou in his review

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:45:23 -0000

#34: Editorial Issues Section 8 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt raised by Dimitri
Papadimitriou in his review
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |       Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial                      |      Status:  new            
Priority:  trivial                        |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Section 8.1 first paragraph, it is not the location of the source that
 determines the “size” of the working set of the EID prefix-to-RLOC cache
 but the number of EID prefixes this “source site” has to reach. The same
 issue occurs at ETR, small sites may have to be configured with a large
 list of EID-to-RLOC mapping entries. Next to this the granularity of the
 EID prefix allocation is also important.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/34>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:13:45 -0000

#34: Editorial Issues Section 8 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |       Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial                      |      Status:  new            
Priority:  trivial                        |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Description changed by luigi@…:

> EID prefix allocation is also important.

New description:

 '''This ticket groups together editorial issues raised by D. Papadimitriou
 and Y. Rekhter in their respective reviews.'''

 '''From D. Papadimitriou's review:'''

 '''From Y. Rekhter's review:'''

  By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it
  can choose a TE  path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and
  re-encapsulate for a tunnel to the  destination end site.

 This is hard to understand.

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/34#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:28:49 -0000

Old description:

> '''This ticket groups together editorial issues raised by D.
> Papadimitriou and Y. Rekhter in their respective reviews.'''
>

New description:

  ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. Recursive tunneling
  generally will result in suboptimal paths but at the benefit of
  steering traffic to resource available parts of the network.

 What exactly does "suboptimal" mean here?

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/34#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:34:38 -0000

New description:

 '''From Y. Rekhter's review:'''
 '''This is part of Comment 36'''

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/34#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:39:55 -0000

New description:

 '''From Y. Rekhter's review:'''
 '''This is part of Comment 39'''

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/34#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues