Subject: [lisp] #29: Editorial Issues Section 2 raised by Dimitri Papadimitriou reviewing draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:23:57 -0000

#29: Editorial Issues Section 2 raised by Dimitri Papadimitriou reviewing draft-
ietf-lisp-06.txt
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |       Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial                      |      Status:  new            
Priority:  minor                          |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Section 2 states “More cost-effective multi-homing” but it is not
 stated what is actually meant by this statement and why the Loc/ID
 scheme as proposed would make multi-homing cost-effective.

 Section 2 states “Mobility without address changing” but then “… or
 acquiring a new address based on the new network location.” These
 statements are contradicting each other.

 Section 2 states “This draft describes protocol mechanisms to achieve
 the desired functional separation.” But separation between which
 functions ? If this statement is related to the separation between
 forwarding and control/routing, then it is defeated looking at i) the
 way RLOC reachability testing inter-twin control as part of the
 forwarding plane, and ii) the use of “Data Probes” forwarding date as
 part of the control plane of TR’s.

 Section 2 the statement “This draft attempts to not compete or overlap
 with such solutions and the proposed protocol changes are expected to
 complement a host-based mechanism when Traffic Engineering
 functionality is desired.” raises the question if these solutions
 would still be complementary if TE functionality is not desired (this
 is not clearly stated in the document). On the other hand, the
 statement “Building the solution into the network will facilitate
 incremental deployment of the technology on the Internet.” should be
 further developed to explain why “network deployment” is considered as
 facilitating incremental deployment ?

 Section 2 states “Some of the design goals of this proposal include:”
 Which are the other goals ? there is only partial match with the
 design goals specified at RRG (the term “design goal” seems to have a
 different meaning) and it is unclear what changes are referring
 to. The statement “Minimize required changes to Internet
 infrastructure.” is vague. The statement “most customer site routers”
 under which condition the remaining fraction would have to change.

 Section 2 describes LISP variants depending on EID “routability” it
 would be appropriate to state “routability” refers to the core
 i.e. between ITR/ETR (as EID remain routable in “sites” otherwise
 there is no difference with host-based solutions)

 Section 2. LISP 1.5 is assumed to make use of a “separate topology”
 also referred to as “alternative topology”. The key question is what
 is this topology ?

 Section 2. LISP 3 assumes the existence of EID-to-RLOC database. How
 the existence of the databases is made aware to ITR. This is what
 determines the use of Data probes vs Map requests if both modes are
 supported.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/29>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:27:34 -0000

#29: Editorial Issues Section 2 of draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt raised by Dimitri
Papadimitriou in his review
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |       Owner:                 
    Type:  editorial                      |      Status:  new            
Priority:  minor                          |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Description changed by luigi@…:

> determines the use of Data probes vs Map requests if both modes are

New description:

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/29#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:33:47 -0000

Priority:  trivial                        |   Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Changes (by luigi@…):

  * priority:  minor => trivial

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/29#comment:2>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues