From wassim.haddad@ericsson.com Tue Feb 11 00:08:24 2014 Return-Path: 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 484431A0906 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:08:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 tomjZkHJoVX5 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1284D1A08F8 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:06:05 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f2f8e000002cdc-f4-52f9d9eccf82 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 39.AE.11484.CE9D9F25; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:06:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:06:03 -0500 From: Wassim Haddad To: "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: LISP WG Meeting: Call for Agenda Items Thread-Index: AQHPJwAb2K9P9uxXlUSd7WyC8IiNoA== Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:06:03 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF1F19E91905BWassimHaddadericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn+6bmz+DDFa061usap3HYvHx1Bsm iyln1S1aj95kdWDxeD5rDavH4Qv3WTyWLPnJ5HFuynfGAJYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsEroxDfw6y FTwSqrjz8jJrA+Mj/i5GTg4JAROJrV+nMkPYYhIX7q1nA7GFBI4wStzeItPFyAVkL2eUaPl1 hwUkwSZgIPF1+VlWEFtEQFnifF8LM0gRs8BKRoldB1cygiSEBfQlJm9tYYMoMpE40zGbCcLW k/j6oZ8dxGYRUJXY+/82mM0rYC6xeNEusAWMQFd8P7UGrJ5ZQFzi1pP5TBDXCUgs2XMe6lJR iZeP/4EdIQo0896juSwQcSWJj7/ns0P0xkg0tkDEeQUEJU7OfMIygVFkFpKxs5CUzUJSBhHX kViw+xMbhK0tsWzha2YY+8yBx1C91hJTVzSyI6tZwMixipGjtDi1LDfdyHATIzD6jkmwOe5g XPDJ8hCjNAeLkjjvl7fOQUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYFzX/SAxum2wo6vZ4 W6f1vcprUYosBbw7LhqefFaxf/rvboVLzQ7X5FfEuGbvPsA5a9Wn4xmZYs8WnwjPZdq1QuNA zOpYiykqt4IsNi/OL7qZcJQ1aLXmrI+O4rJyOwu/hKlwaPnuTpipVVI2t71YW6VP3V/qXP/1 hy0PH9w4tupGtO2pCQZOSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAuxPTNYwCAAA= Subject: [lisp] LISP WG Meeting: Call for Agenda Items 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:08:24 -0000 --_000_CF1F19E91905BWassimHaddadericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, The LISP WG meeting is scheduled on Monday (03/03) afternoon. Also, please = note that the deadline for all drafts submission is on Friday 02/14. If you would like a slot for this meeting, please notify the chairs as to w= hat the topic is, the relevant draft and how much time you would need to pr= esent. Regards, LISP WG Secretaries --_000_CF1F19E91905BWassimHaddadericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear al= l,

The LIS= P WG meeting is scheduled on Monday (03/03) afternoon. Also, please note th= at the deadline for all drafts submission is on Friday 02/14.

If you = would like a slot for this meeting, please notify the chairs as to what the= topic is, the relevant draft and how much time you would need to present.&= nbsp;

Regards= ,

LISP WG= Secretaries

--_000_CF1F19E91905BWassimHaddadericssoncom_-- From safreita@cisco.com Wed Feb 12 03:22:35 2014 Return-Path: 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 E851E1A095C for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:22:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 23-RArThSKjP for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:22:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18EA1A0958 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:22:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4168; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392204153; x=1393413753; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=8fn4ToXuCTsdUWbPBsJ6DsCJXtScNKrU4jv3+2KOcQs=; b=fdOxhDCjcOV4ddsrNS94C45WWSkBjt81rb64sqKBJwtJy286XKZ0bkYy tqKM+PiNWpteoTIBS7ps4BHiiZ9Ke04K2AZa+uZacI/54/jctr7LAtvLN JZyUAz4F5HvMy87SuATQZ5tvPeKWCcCQWnRLNpDGMrnOuCbfx/mkcqrj5 o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQFADpY+1KtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagkhEOFeFYrlFgREWdIInAQQtRgYSAQweGT0mAQQODQGHfA3IZxeOSDGDK4EUBKpLgW+BPoIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,832,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="19827479" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2014 11:22:33 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1CBMW7d029783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:22:33 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.52]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:22:32 -0600 From: "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" To: "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: =?Windows-1252?Q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extension_=96_Draft_S?= =?Windows-1252?Q?ubmitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_IETF_89?= Thread-Index: Ac8n5ZPaCJxkUHHVSlOvwsk63b0DFA== Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:22:32 +0000 Message-ID: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.82.214.53] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78Cxmbrcdx03ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:22:36 -0000 --_000_6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78Cxmbrcdx03ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi LISP Working Group, Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure Hybrid Cl= oud Extension. The draft can be found at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-l= isp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-00.txt We would like to request your comments on it. Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 meeting to= present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have a sma= ll slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. Sincerely, Patrice and Santiago --_000_6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78Cxmbrcdx03ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi LISP Working Group,

Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LI= SP for Secure Hybrid Cloud Extension.

The draft can be found at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-0= 0.txt

We would like to request your comments on it.

Also, we would like request a small slot on the upco= ming IETF 89 meeting to present an overview of the use case covered on the = draft.

We look forward to your comments and for your feedba= ck if we can have a small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF= 89.

Sincerely,

Patrice and Santiago

--_000_6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78Cxmbrcdx03ciscoc_-- From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Feb 12 08:54:21 2014 Return-Path: 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 363CC1A09C2 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:54:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 pHBx9U3vP6JQ for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CDA1A09B2 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7213A0EC3; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:54:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-222.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CDF53A0EC2; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:54:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:54:24 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:54:21 -0000 This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? Yours, Joel On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: > Hi LISP Working Group, > > Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure Hybrid > Cloud Extension. > > The draft can be found at > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-00.txt > > We would like to request your comments on it. > > Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 meeting > to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. > > We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have a > small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. > > Sincerely, > > Patrice and Santiago > From fmaino@cisco.com Wed Feb 12 09:04:23 2014 Return-Path: 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 7C7041A05D3 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:04:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 7EdrU9hW6RG7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FAE91A04C6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:04:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1584; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392224660; x=1393434260; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0/ywdKwhfbVOT/WA43disWdVSKGIT5bQ/T2Elblyn2o=; b=LoQJWNX2TQNYZwcv3Va296TdxRM/GMgjvrvTuZdZ/Ptt1iX5XX0rbyHY vC1oRuO8LkXpG+vb4mBjov6Gsq1jgI+sVHvO734hS2CWdj9bFz0/jP04V NWyzosPlbu3DpCB6Rd20H3f+O9XEZ3iaIovrHDjbrHbdsP8wTIJliI6sM Q=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,833,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="102997742" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2014 17:04:20 +0000 Received: from [10.21.148.224] (sjc-vpn7-1248.cisco.com [10.21.148.224]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1CH4ImQ012997; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:04:19 GMT Message-ID: <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:04:18 -0800 From: Fabio Maino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:04:23 -0000 Hi Joel, This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key derivation/distribution Fabio On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means > outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it > can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. > > Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF > meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? > > Yours, > Joel > > On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >> Hi LISP Working Group, >> >> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure Hybrid >> Cloud Extension. >> >> The draft can be found at >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-00.txt >> >> >> We would like to request your comments on it. >> >> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 meeting >> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >> >> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have a >> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Patrice and Santiago >> From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Feb 12 09:12:32 2014 Return-Path: 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 1537F1A061C for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 NfYG-ejKQDYM for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452251A05E5 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D463A0F8D; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-222.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05AAD3A0F8A; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:12:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FBAB81.5010904@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:12:33 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fabio Maino , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:12:32 -0000 that this describes an existing usage is clearly very important. It seems that if the scale of the VPN is small enough that manually configured IPSec tunnels can be used, then LISP does not provide a lot of advantage. If it is automated tunnels, there seems to be a need to coordinate the two systems. What am I missing? Thanks, Joel On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: > Hi Joel, > This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec > (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). > > I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) > combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient > encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and > possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key > derivation/distribution > > Fabio > > > On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it >> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >> >> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>> >>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure Hybrid >>> Cloud Extension. >>> >>> The draft can be found at >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-00.txt >>> >>> >>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>> >>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 meeting >>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>> >>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have a >>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Patrice and Santiago >>> > > From yhertogh@cisco.com Wed Feb 12 09:16:57 2014 Return-Path: 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 06BD71A05E5; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:16:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 hrRr5Aq6284B; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229AA1A061F; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:16:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1870; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392225414; x=1393435014; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=wFTzCjW4n4ruxTxcat9QzzB4gy4JJY8ggVEyLd9lqpM=; b=L/qMpyzjSQ7e5Y/CmwzFWwYtk8sX/68ix52bnV6uDsomlBJDOwfdEGGw WvQWPBO36PmYVpmLALJF4Drx1h91+jMblPpZ9tbSMbR4Uu2zgD/QTXsjS 6Sp59kgb0bs4RZQSqn5xpDRwUV8SCsJ5VFUBFBk3GLJrurxdQPN85LwbE U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAJur+1KtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagw44Twa8d4EYFgF0g30BAQEEOj0CEAIBCDYQMhsBBgMCBA4FCRKHaQgFwS0XjxIHhDYBA5gWgTCQZIFtgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,833,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300592702" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2014 17:16:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1CHGrnk021549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:16:53 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.117]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:16:53 -0600 From: "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" To: "draft-ietf-nvo3-gap-analysis@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-unified-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHPKBKy96ei+2sTC0CcguUOgHwQk5qyUaOA Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:16:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140212165134.27703.4925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140212165134.27703.4925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.55.169.140] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: [lisp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-unified-01.txt 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:16:57 -0000 Hi, This is a new rev of how LISP compares to the NVO3 data plane and control plane requirements. We also added the gap analysis for the NVO3 security requirements. =20 What is the plan forward in terms of adding them to the gap analysis draft? Regards Yves Hertoghs On 12/02/14 17:51, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-unified-01.txt >has been successfully submitted by Yves Hertoghs and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-unified >Revision: 01 >Title: A Unified LISP Mapping Database for L2 and L3 Network >Virtualization Overlays >Document date: 2014-02-14 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 26 >URL: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane- >unified-01.txt >Status: =20 >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-uni >fied/ >Htmlized: =20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-unified-0 >1 >Diff: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-hertoghs-nvo3-lisp-controlplane-u= ni >fied-01 > >Abstract: > The purpose of this draft is to document how the Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP) Control Plane can be used to offer a > unified (offering L2 AND L3) Overlay solution that matches the > framework and requirements of Network Virtualization over L3 (NVO3). > This information is provided as input to the NVO3 analysis of the > suitability of existing IETF protocols to the NVO3 requirements. > > > =20 > =20 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat > From yhertogh@cisco.com Wed Feb 12 09:18:58 2014 Return-Path: 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 CB71A1A09A7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:18:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 yLhszMa5CwgQ for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:18:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616E01A0902 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:18:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2382; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392225535; x=1393435135; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=65VdWkPAG1r/+HpX0jrkG0wf9ZHty+fkd6QGTDJgLmg=; b=cq92NEWHgS8201D15U9qujGoC3zA/p8OiRFJn2lh8In2cEBfzIZkSPIR oW0Fbhr5lpZHvhutY9+ixHtktAqHDUA5f+77cabeJd96+oPjGgVOdLqTN 5p4WPtRUqxLR7mAH7L5qXdejQQ4tsu3QXv8Rz3vPw3R0H+ANORK4q6Xh0 I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAJur+1KtJXG//2dsb2JhbABagw44Vbx3gRgWAXSDfQEBAQRzBhACAQgYIwsyJQIEAQ0FCYd7DcEtF48SB4Q2BIkLjwuSFIFtgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,833,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300593230" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2014 17:18:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1CHItSP021731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:18:55 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.117]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:18:55 -0600 From: "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extension_=AD_Draft_Sub?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?mitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_IETF_89?= Thread-Index: AQHPKBaBSFqkIJH3zES/s5RQKn6Gjw== Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:18:54 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> <52FBAB81.5010904@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <52FBAB81.5010904@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.55.169.140] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <9A9495F869299046A1520B29ABC72363@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?iso-8859-1?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extensio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n_=AD_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_I?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:18:59 -0000 Joel, The main advantages are: * You can use the same subnet/prefix in both sites * there is optimised ingress routing from remote LISP enabled sites towards the right destination Yves On 12/02/14 18:12, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: >that this describes an existing usage is clearly very important. > >It seems that if the scale of the VPN is small enough that manually >configured IPSec tunnels can be used, then LISP does not provide a lot >of advantage. If it is automated tunnels, there seems to be a need to >coordinate the two systems. What am I missing? > >Thanks, >Joel > >On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec >> (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). >> >> I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) >> combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient >> encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and >> possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key >> derivation/distribution >> >> Fabio >> >> >> On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >>> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it >>> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >>> >>> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >>> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>>> >>>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure >>>>Hybrid >>>> Cloud Extension. >>>> >>>> The draft can be found at >>>>=20 >>>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-useca >>>>se-00.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>>> >>>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 >>>>meeting >>>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>>> >>>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have >>>>a >>>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Patrice and Santiago >>>> >> >> From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Feb 12 09:23:54 2014 Return-Path: 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 406DC1A09A3 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:23:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 zbp1Nqd1YJ66 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FE01A08B8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B22C3A0F77; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:23:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-222.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BA203A0EE0; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:23:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FBAE2E.6090304@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:23:58 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fabio Maino , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:23:54 -0000 In the existing deployment, how does the LISP ITR know that the LISp traffic should use the IPSec tunnel. I can imagine several possibilities: 1) All traffic to that destination from this source address uses the IPSec tunnel 2) All LISp encapsualted traffic to that ETR uses the IPSec Tunnel 3) There is some LISP attribute that provides the correlation. It would seem that as a general mechanism this should probably be addressed. I also think that the document should be more explicit about what the resulting message stack looks like. (I have a guess, but readers should not have to guess.) Yours, Joel On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: > Hi Joel, > This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec > (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). > > I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) > combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient > encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and > possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key > derivation/distribution > > Fabio > > > On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it >> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >> >> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>> >>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure Hybrid >>> Cloud Extension. >>> >>> The draft can be found at >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-00.txt >>> >>> >>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>> >>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 meeting >>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>> >>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have a >>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Patrice and Santiago >>> > > From jmh@joelhalpern.com Wed Feb 12 09:26:10 2014 Return-Path: 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 D3F351A0502 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:26:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 C8FuhFssxBlJ for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BEF1A01A8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8421B3A0F8C; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:26:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-222.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B3E13A0F77; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:26:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FBAEB6.50304@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:26:14 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" , "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> <52FBAB81.5010904@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Patrice Bellagamba \(pbellaga\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?iso-8859-1?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extensio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n_=AD_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_I?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:26:11 -0000 I think taht using the same subnet/prefix simply amounts to having /32 routes in the edge devices. Also, there are other known mechanisms (L2VPN extension) which achieve that goal. Having said that, it is a useful goal and one LISP helps with. I do not see why the routing is any more optimal than any of the other tunnel management mechanisms. Yours, Joel On 2/12/14, 12:18 PM, Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) wrote: > Joel, > > The main advantages are: > * You can use the same subnet/prefix in both sites > * there is optimised ingress routing from remote LISP enabled sites > towards the right destination > > Yves > > On 12/02/14 18:12, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > >> that this describes an existing usage is clearly very important. >> >> It seems that if the scale of the VPN is small enough that manually >> configured IPSec tunnels can be used, then LISP does not provide a lot >> of advantage. If it is automated tunnels, there seems to be a need to >> coordinate the two systems. What am I missing? >> >> Thanks, >> Joel >> >> On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >>> Hi Joel, >>> This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec >>> (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). >>> >>> I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) >>> combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient >>> encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and >>> possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key >>> derivation/distribution >>> >>> Fabio >>> >>> >>> On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >>>> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it >>>> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >>>> >>>> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >>>> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Joel >>>> >>>> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>>>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>>>> >>>>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure >>>>> Hybrid >>>>> Cloud Extension. >>>>> >>>>> The draft can be found at >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-useca >>>>> se-00.txt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>>>> >>>>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 >>>>> meeting >>>>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>>>> >>>>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have >>>>> a >>>>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> Patrice and Santiago >>>>> >>> >>> > > From farinacci@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:49:21 2014 Return-Path: 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 748571A0121 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 rG0bElgdFAHu for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A591B1A010F for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w7so7774198lbi.7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0SQ9DmWyp1lfhxC7tlTi+sakvtobqqrXEAy+3wJ87j0=; b=HUHxxE9BdMu9EfEYfyvvyhPwvDi/XRTbgiR+gHLZH0MpkM5tfJjJYWdXj2URuT/PpN 0diKjGnwl2YGy8VCEsOg1c8zSL4yTud5ho8mAmh5RKnvTAhLQdVz/8BQhXPRFJQ/k17L ClNxqqPvvZC1t53/mbiit9UeT2Q1UXrPRh6GsPoMAPtmbiJ2op3y3tgsZ1fMuioTNLHD 7uy44+wzPN3AU5jdmGf9rDzSD/EjUto6rkAeytIRPvQRhydipXDh+9fk7hp67wet2Kw5 AoKaKD/O5c+ZBcfsaQGmyAQ4JqXEqjpSqRN5+F3iTNsULmQbmWcsNPU5nUitVCTNDUj1 McXQ== X-Received: by 10.152.143.231 with SMTP id sh7mr34427047lab.26.1392274157711; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.131] ([178.34.134.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bl8sm983854lbb.3.2014.02.12.22.49.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:17 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:32:00 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9C105BB0-A4F2-421B-BB31-6F4B8062B3BC@gmail.com> References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: "Santiago Freitas \(safreita\)" , Patrice Bellagamba , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:49:21 -0000 > This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means = outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it = can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >=20 > Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF = meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? FYI, my draft on data-plane crypto is coming. Dino >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >> Hi LISP Working Group, >>=20 >> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure = Hybrid >> Cloud Extension. >>=20 >> The draft can be found at >> = http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-= 00.txt >>=20 >> We would like to request your comments on it. >>=20 >> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 = meeting >> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>=20 >> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have = a >> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>=20 >> Sincerely, >>=20 >> Patrice and Santiago >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From farinacci@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 22:49:28 2014 Return-Path: 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 BE90E1A0128 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Zqg0Y7pubI1h for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094511A0126 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id mc6so7758089lab.7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QIVG44ribAbCJBI+mDm5dvvH+PvR8kLQG5vBsfxxw6Q=; b=RqDkWfqE3sAmlqEB41SIP4cj75jtQJ6/TC2RoCTG9hDvPUI5ErCQID156Y4r5cBf/u 0RaAtHx09K7pzABeFxbd634RYCBCNcscL8lnpZifqRfybtGPvhk3XeH+owyh5RkXDmgu FYGyu1f1IohVAegYKOCZUwYVllKMQO9Zzmnd/ZUITHWg4N31AlgbBK9racL49wn0Kvqc 9a/FMisXJjlsoecCha+G2ATXKYIbh18Uxyakz+E1R3TGN1kSfXYwJnIzQGtMXIwxY3dh j7Uiw0QTsLflgbKVB312Mu3Ao+07naeGeNXwQhU+sh1UmlcraJnCrjAeso2RpJ7S9APw m1Nw== X-Received: by 10.112.253.34 with SMTP id zx2mr114276lbc.61.1392274165136; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.131] ([178.34.134.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bl8sm983854lbb.3.2014.02.12.22.49.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:49:24 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:33:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <173B5C7B-A359-4CD4-BBD9-83A3C4D2E6A6@gmail.com> References: <6E7BD95280BD654AAA393A8BF2228BE410F5D78C@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <52FBA740.40602@joelhalpern.com> <52FBA992.30307@cisco.com> To: Fabio Maino X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: "Santiago Freitas \(safreita\)" , Patrice Bellagamba , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] =?windows-1252?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extens?= =?windows-1252?q?ion_=96_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_IETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:49:29 -0000 > Hi Joel, > This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec = (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). So this is an existing best practice use-case document Fabio? > I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) = combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient = encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and = possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key = derivation/distribution The goal of my work is to provide data-plane confidentiality and it was = suggested by the SAAG that we don't need to use a third party PKI, be it = traditional or using the mapping database. So I have a design that takes = their recommendations. Dino >=20 > Fabio >=20 >=20 > On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means = outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it = can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >>=20 >> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF = meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >>=20 >> Yours, >> Joel >>=20 >> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>>=20 >>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure = Hybrid >>> Cloud Extension. >>>=20 >>> The draft can be found at >>> = http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-usecase-= 00.txt=20 >>>=20 >>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>>=20 >>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 = meeting >>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>>=20 >>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can = have a >>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>>=20 >>> Sincerely, >>>=20 >>> Patrice and Santiago >>>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From farinacci@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 23:19:47 2014 Return-Path: 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 DA6D21A0133 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 GxlGaH3rWkzS for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A5B1A0132 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id l4so7954702lbv.33 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1c2y7BxzDuJi4z389wo9KuqIGXGmHgYewp1r3FWKhBY=; b=xv74dsdeqvYuTCj09C3N7n3BjFCcWPErakRT/wyghqTqql6L4tjWxTu25Lqeiky/Ls fPOFuQpBMXIJInT/QFn7aZrEo7XCLtcqqTj3CmtM4A7MqN4yxvpHFgZn+7v3U4YXNCgz nExcgYYZbgKV1Lk2G+a5J3pExiEczqxMfG3iMZFUHDtE+WIuYihxsYVJsXB6fiZ+qcYb eeivQzHsTbZjEthu/epyH3QZpOyo0vq1msppDLCyDEz5gzyQP/xCJTkhg31ZK4YJYL2Z NlTEzFVpVZrr9cvGsWCxy2u+1kxXKny7OZZfkeBtoj97GoBcSEisaoxUrFj4pDNqX22Y TVDg== X-Received: by 10.152.27.133 with SMTP id t5mr43222lag.66.1392275984081; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.131] ([178.34.134.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ya9sm1057083lbb.2.2014.02.12.23.19.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:43 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <9676AEAE-6056-4F18-824C-CDCE745096C5@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:19:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9676AEAE-6056-4F18-824C-CDCE745096C5@gmail.com> To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for working group docment 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:19:48 -0000 Could I have some status on this? There has been little to no discussion = on this topic. Dino On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Dino Farinacci = wrote: > Draft draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-02.txt has been previously requested to = be a working group document. There wasn't overwelming conscensus to do = so, so its status was not changed for about a year or so. >=20 > At this time I would like to request it to be a working group document = (and to actually bring it to last-call). RIG is a tool that seems to be = useful and many are using it to debug and monitor the DDT mapping = database transport system (and have for some time now). >=20 > I would like to ask the authors to move this to a working group = docuemnt. >=20 > Thanks, > Dino >=20 From sander@steffann.nl Thu Feb 13 02:43:30 2014 Return-Path: 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 9A94E1A01E0 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.194 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 hzEX0vpJwAin for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:43:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073CA1A01D5 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2996043; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:43:26 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMptoi+YS68W; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:43:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.12.21.78] (gw01.dro2.network.solcon.net [212.45.32.70]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55E9834; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:43:24 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:43:23 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9676AEAE-6056-4F18-824C-CDCE745096C5@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for working group docment 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:43:30 -0000 Hi Dino, > Could I have some status on this? There has been little to no = discussion on this topic. Sorry for not replying earlier. I think this draft should be a working = group document as it specifies an important tool for DDT, which is an = important technology for LISP. Cheers, Sander From damien.saucez@gmail.com Thu Feb 13 03:25:15 2014 Return-Path: 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 2D40F1A01ED for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:25:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 MiPaEGJmDkT3 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281841A01E8 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e4so8365742wiv.10 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:25:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5avc+Yj0fTokfVK/+nxB+thcAECN59+8XCXwrmSIX+s=; b=xjC7yj7N/zYid3yyd352B1J7IdFEzw6yzq3sEsZBPXwJY3uliI5ruIcWUgsTXNSqAc sYfq5T25ExnGIIJtD9NaLo5CPcgdwZEAGacHF82MG1ljsbg+CbPVp79lZrx9SrHCKx1B vraEL1kUiX+YjgH7lHbCMm5dm6K8NGGa7+0h+mm1STUlBr6zxFM1digHdUNLvkwNW7gG /Gt5FXhXTHHGg2gsJxY45Mv4xLBKAziv8rRP0TA1AqErDJ+kcidnrxlj6M557GE84cvN w0wAmDRbzGBAnOC7YGCttGFco+sWYnGEI26E4aapMIWvuyDLUuxpW1rTVBMkYal0hfF1 UZfw== X-Received: by 10.180.101.166 with SMTP id fh6mr2208331wib.2.1392290711415; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:25:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from faucon.inria.fr (faucon.inria.fr. [138.96.201.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p1sm13246590wie.1.2014.02.13.03.25.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:25:10 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: <52E6ADA9.7050609@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:25:09 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9676AEAE-6056-4F18-824C-CDCE745096C5@gmail.com> <52E6ADA9.7050609@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for working group docment 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:25:15 -0000 On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:04, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Assuming for the moment that the authors are willing, > is there support for making this a WG document? > Are there folks other than the authors who will undertake to review = it? > Do folks believe it is an appropriate document for the WG to produce = (rather than sending it to the Independent Stream?) >=20 I do believe this is an appropriate document for the WG to produce and will be happy to review it. Damien Saucez > Yours, > Joel, asking as chair >=20 > On 1/27/14 1:55 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Draft draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-02.txt has been previously requested = to be a working group document. There wasn't overwelming conscensus to = do so, so its status was not changed for about a year or so. >>=20 >> At this time I would like to request it to be a working group = document (and to actually bring it to last-call). RIG is a tool that = seems to be useful and many are using it to debug and monitor the DDT = mapping database transport system (and have for some time now). >>=20 >> I would like to ask the authors to move this to a working group = docuemnt. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Dino >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From fcoras@ac.upc.edu Thu Feb 13 05:39:24 2014 Return-Path: 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 4C94C1A0240 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:39:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 82F-TjjO2cdy for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:39:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5341A017E for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:39:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.ac.upc.edu (gw-old.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.3]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1DDdGX5032391; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:39:16 +0100 Received: from [147.83.130.42] (dhcp6.ccaba.upc.edu [147.83.130.42]) by gw.ac.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B5B6B020C; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:34:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52FCCB04.1060209@ac.upc.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:39:16 +0100 From: Florin Coras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lisp@ietf.org References: <9676AEAE-6056-4F18-824C-CDCE745096C5@gmail.com> <52E6ADA9.7050609@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [lisp] Request for working group docment 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:39:24 -0000 On 02/13/2014 12:25 PM, Damien Saucez wrote: > On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:04, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > >> Assuming for the moment that the authors are willing, >> is there support for making this a WG document? >> Are there folks other than the authors who will undertake to review it? >> Do folks believe it is an appropriate document for the WG to produce (rather than sending it to the Independent Stream?) >> > I do believe this is an appropriate document for the WG to produce and > will be happy to review it. +1 Florin > > Damien Saucez > >> Yours, >> Joel, asking as chair >> >> On 1/27/14 1:55 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> Draft draft-farinacci-lisp-rig-02.txt has been previously requested to be a working group document. There wasn't overwelming conscensus to do so, so its status was not changed for about a year or so. >>> >>> At this time I would like to request it to be a working group document (and to actually bring it to last-call). RIG is a tool that seems to be useful and many are using it to debug and monitor the DDT mapping database transport system (and have for some time now). >>> >>> I would like to ask the authors to move this to a working group docuemnt. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dino >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From jmh@joelhalpern.com Thu Feb 13 06:12:53 2014 Return-Path: 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 4C01B1A02A1 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 ZqTx4uajPWho for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7144B1A026C for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A931BD3BAF; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:12:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-222.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19F431BD3BA4; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:12:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FCD2E4.5060506@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:12:52 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Patrice Bellagamba (pbellaga)" , "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" , "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [lisp] =?iso-8859-1?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extensio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n_=AD_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_I?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:12:53 -0000 Viewed as a use case draft, what is there is probably reasonable. I would be inclined to include some indications of the open questions in addressing the use case, but that is not mandatory. Yours, Joel On 2/13/14, 4:30 AM, Patrice Bellagamba (pbellaga) wrote: > Hi Joel, you are right, in this case LISP mobility is used instead of L2 > technics, and there is advantages to this. > We have seen multiple customers that are not confident with L2 extension, > especially because it does extend the broadcast domain. > Here in addition the L3 device that perform LISP xTR in the cloud is > providing default gateway locally, allowing not to trombone toward the > enterprise to have intra-cloud routing. > > LISP respond to the need 'Route when you can, Bridge when you must' > > Thanks, Patrice > > On 2/12/14 6:26 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > >> I think taht using the same subnet/prefix simply amounts to having /32 >> routes in the edge devices. Also, there are other known mechanisms >> (L2VPN extension) which achieve that goal. >> Having said that, it is a useful goal and one LISP helps with. >> >> I do not see why the routing is any more optimal than any of the other >> tunnel management mechanisms. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 2/12/14, 12:18 PM, Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) wrote: >>> Joel, >>> >>> The main advantages are: >>> * You can use the same subnet/prefix in both sites >>> * there is optimised ingress routing from remote LISP enabled sites >>> towards the right destination >>> >>> Yves >>> >>> On 12/02/14 18:12, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: >>> >>>> that this describes an existing usage is clearly very important. >>>> >>>> It seems that if the scale of the VPN is small enough that manually >>>> configured IPSec tunnels can be used, then LISP does not provide a lot >>>> of advantage. If it is automated tunnels, there seems to be a need to >>>> coordinate the two systems. What am I missing? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Joel >>>> >>>> On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >>>>> Hi Joel, >>>>> This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec >>>>> (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). >>>>> >>>>> I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) >>>>> combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient >>>>> encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system >>>>> (and >>>>> possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key >>>>> derivation/distribution >>>>> >>>>> Fabio >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>>>> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >>>>>> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that >>>>>> it >>>>>> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >>>>>> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yours, >>>>>> Joel >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>>>>>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure >>>>>>> Hybrid >>>>>>> Cloud Extension. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The draft can be found at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-use >>>>>>> ca >>>>>>> se-00.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 >>>>>>> meeting >>>>>>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patrice and Santiago >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > From pbellaga@cisco.com Thu Feb 13 01:26:14 2014 Return-Path: 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 9EAA91A01BC for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:26:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 e7OprMOnIHiv for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:26:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163121A00FA for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:26:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3526; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392283571; x=1393493171; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C/6Ps1oi5yfnihh/e68hb6ztdO9sE9MW3m/rA9s7YMM=; b=GVym6ONilEgg6QYRhzlxuhin/bRMbo58pmaQXkxFPuysVzAKIkE1vZq0 EuJ6lPOW2XUXFE2GSeNmbgLmoVFEEUzI5FBLE4h82s5QSizuBChDiYVNR QhhHJer0u0b+5lZTzXi5vOR0aDr4bIfy02k2W6s0lV6VkLAIxxC/zCIVy U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAG6P/FKtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgww4Vb0NgRYWAXSDfQEBAQRzBhIBCBgjPSUCBAENBQmHew2/WRePEgeENgSJC48LkhSBbYE+gio X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,837,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300768491" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2014 09:26:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1D9QAPW000637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:26:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.180]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:26:10 -0600 From: "Patrice Bellagamba (pbellaga)" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extension_=AD_Draft_Sub?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?mitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_IETF_89?= Thread-Index: AQHPKJ2hvAnmRpYqV0OytDCPI72miw== Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:26:09 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <52FBAB81.5010904@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 x-originating-ip: [10.60.92.197] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <925846601FC7574CB002567C9BF75093@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:14:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [lisp] =?iso-8859-1?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extensio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n_=AD_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_I?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:26:14 -0000 Hi Joel, thanks to review the draft. Regarding the IPSec, this is just a transport to encrypt the LISP flow. We did not described the multiple possibilities to perform the encryption, but may be we should have. The main idea, is to have a LISP tunnel between PxTR on Enterprise DC and xTR on Cloud that allows IP mobility without any iTR on enterprise remote sites, means no path optimization. LISP is providing here a great advantage as it allows for subnet extension on the cloud without the usage of any L2 technic. . Now, how we do encrypt this tunnel is of multiple ways. 1) As there is no scale requirement, and as the Enterprise may want to also have plain routing to the Cloud, one option, which is the only one we have relied on, is to establish an IPSEC tunnel between the Cloud and the Enterprise DC, enabling a routing protocol over it and letting it allows RLOCs to connect over IPSEC. 2) We can also, instead of creating an IPSEC tunnel, just encrypt the LISP tunnel itself, in transport mode. 3) we can use GDOI to provide the LISP tunnel crypto, but in the case of Cloud where no scale in term of number of sites is required that may be optional. As it is a use case draft, we tried to descibe one option, if you think we should dig other option, then we will do it for next version. Patrice On 2/12/14 6:12 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: >that this describes an existing usage is clearly very important. > >It seems that if the scale of the VPN is small enough that manually >configured IPSec tunnels can be used, then LISP does not provide a lot >of advantage. If it is automated tunnels, there seems to be a need to >coordinate the two systems. What am I missing? > >Thanks, >Joel > >On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec >> (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). >> >> I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) >> combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient >> encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system (and >> possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key >> derivation/distribution >> >> Fabio >> >> >> On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >>> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that it >>> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >>> >>> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >>> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >>> >>> Yours, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>>> >>>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure >>>>Hybrid >>>> Cloud Extension. >>>> >>>> The draft can be found at >>>>=20 >>>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-useca >>>>se-00.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>>> >>>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 >>>>meeting >>>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>>> >>>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can have >>>>a >>>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Patrice and Santiago >>>> >> >> From pbellaga@cisco.com Thu Feb 13 01:30:50 2014 Return-Path: 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 B08F11A00FA for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:30:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 mPx-Wk37-IM3 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DD91A01B1 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 01:30:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3627; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392283844; x=1393493444; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sF6lU0cw8zE/na3gJt+w/EU+IE8U/Tcvq5QoINERNDE=; b=NwgYwJKVcYzDtOXyk9ndqWptSanQ5W6nw+0uazZldPyWwtzHAo2mSRVe 1gv5I4ya6b6R3eGoBTeBR7WHFk71hbs7vJcu6SE4s0GVhHvco3XHix6nI OWK+PfQ06TDYd9SBRXr57r9Asg97HRL59IQEXX/6/lmXnQF9DeQa8K+f+ I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAFWQ/FKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABZgwo4V79JgRUWdIIlAQEBBHMGEgEIGCM9JQIEAQ0FCYd8DcgOF455B4Q4BIkQjxuSIYFvgT6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,837,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="303788928" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2014 09:30:43 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1D9UhmF030610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:30:43 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.180]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:30:43 -0600 From: "Patrice Bellagamba (pbellaga)" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" , "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" , "Santiago Freitas (safreita)" , "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extension_=AD_Draft_Sub?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?mitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_IETF_89?= Thread-Index: AQHPKBaClAO2GIrjhUiK17O355RlmpqyQ3cAgAEeOIA= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:30:42 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <52FBAEB6.50304@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 x-originating-ip: [10.60.92.197] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <86AB845E14D28144A5716DBC22B01378@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:14:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [lisp] =?iso-8859-1?q?Using_LISP_for_Secure_Hybrid_Cloud_Extensio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n_=AD_Draft_Submitted_and_Request_for_slot_to_present_on_I?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ETF_89?= 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:30:50 -0000 Hi Joel, you are right, in this case LISP mobility is used instead of L2 technics, and there is advantages to this. We have seen multiple customers that are not confident with L2 extension, especially because it does extend the broadcast domain. Here in addition the L3 device that perform LISP xTR in the cloud is providing default gateway locally, allowing not to trombone toward the enterprise to have intra-cloud routing. LISP respond to the need 'Route when you can, Bridge when you must' Thanks, Patrice On 2/12/14 6:26 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: >I think taht using the same subnet/prefix simply amounts to having /32 >routes in the edge devices. Also, there are other known mechanisms >(L2VPN extension) which achieve that goal. >Having said that, it is a useful goal and one LISP helps with. > >I do not see why the routing is any more optimal than any of the other >tunnel management mechanisms. > >Yours, >Joel > >On 2/12/14, 12:18 PM, Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh) wrote: >> Joel, >> >> The main advantages are: >> * You can use the same subnet/prefix in both sites >> * there is optimised ingress routing from remote LISP enabled sites >> towards the right destination >> >> Yves >> >> On 12/02/14 18:12, "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: >> >>> that this describes an existing usage is clearly very important. >>> >>> It seems that if the scale of the VPN is small enough that manually >>> configured IPSec tunnels can be used, then LISP does not provide a lot >>> of advantage. If it is automated tunnels, there seems to be a need to >>> coordinate the two systems. What am I missing? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 2/12/14, 12:04 PM, Fabio Maino wrote: >>>> Hi Joel, >>>> This describes how LISP is used today in combination with IPsec >>>> (typically GDOI is used to simplify key distribution). >>>> >>>> I think Dino's work is more forward looking, with two main goals: (1) >>>> combine encryption with the LISP dataplane, for a more efficient >>>> encoding on the wire, (2) take advantage of the LISP mapping system >>>>(and >>>> possibly of some of the mechanisms in LISP-SEC) for key >>>> derivation/distribution >>>> >>>> Fabio >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/12/14, 8:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>>> This draft seems to expect that IPSec tunnels will be set up by means >>>>> outside of LISP. That seems to contravene the premise of LISp that >>>>>it >>>>> can operate without needing permanent / pre-established tunnel state. >>>>> >>>>> Should this be tied to the work Dino described at the last IETF >>>>> meeting on using LISP to establish encryption for the LISP tunnel? >>>>> >>>>> Yours, >>>>> Joel >>>>> >>>>> On 2/12/14, 6:22 AM, Santiago Freitas (safreita) wrote: >>>>>> Hi LISP Working Group, >>>>>> >>>>>> Today we have submitted a draft that covers using LISP for Secure >>>>>> Hybrid >>>>>> Cloud Extension. >>>>>> >>>>>> The draft can be found at >>>>>> >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-freitas-bellagamba-lisp-hybrid-cloud-use >>>>>>ca >>>>>> se-00.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We would like to request your comments on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, we would like request a small slot on the upcoming IETF 89 >>>>>> meeting >>>>>> to present an overview of the use case covered on the draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> We look forward to your comments and for your feedback if we can >>>>>>have >>>>>> a >>>>>> small slot to present an overview of this draft on IETF 89. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrice and Santiago >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> From nobody Fri Feb 14 08:10:36 2014 Return-Path: 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 2518E1A02B3 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:10:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 owYH3JsU5nQ1 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:10:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F00A1A02A3 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:10:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFF51BDC456 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:10:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-222.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47FBD1BDC450 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:10:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FE3FFF.7050706@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:10:39 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lisp@ietf.org" References: <52FE3CA6.7080706@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <52FE3CA6.7080706@innovationslab.net> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <52FE3CA6.7080706@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020708090803070203060408" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/tvW45ki7AtZcOTjqRNAMN1Sk8sw Subject: [lisp] Fwd: Approved: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:10:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020708090803070203060408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The IESG has approved the deployment document. Many thanks to the author and shepherd. Congratulations to the WG and the authors. Yours, Joel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Approved: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:56:22 -0500 From: Brian Haberman To: 'The IESG' CC: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment@tools.ietf.org , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Secretariat (BCC:'ed), draft-ietf-lisp-deployment is now approved. All notes and write-ups are correct. Please move it along in the publication process. Regards, Brian --------------020708090803070203060408 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcvTWFjR1BHMiB2 Mi4wLjIwIChEYXJ3aW4pCkNvbW1lbnQ6IEdQR1Rvb2xzIC0gaHR0cHM6Ly9ncGd0b29scy5v cmcKCmlRRWNCQUVCQ2dBR0JRSlMvanl0QUFvSkVCT1pScUNpN2dvcXpvd0gvUmlHdmF4c25k aldHYmkzd2xLUWlNRUEKY0VqSlZxSUpoZTU3ZkgxNGFCMmthNTZBbGhzSlhUTTNhelpjczA3 OWVZU0Z1Wm1zYzR3UkNzV09MalkrOVRubgpQQmxqdEM3ZWt2UlRZaG1OWEV6WmlVZjIwOTJ5 SmJoVDVGYkhOZFJHQ3dCSEkyZ29vUnFQQVRhR3RaWVJ0TW8xCjVaUUtVZEFHTjVmK2xtQ3JV VnFIbWJtK3pYYW9tU1l1UkZDNzdZVFQ4UVpKNWxOYm5QZzJMWEswNkkxc08yc1EKYjZCanJ0 aW5oY1hKMVhjY1JLOGY0TDluWERWaDNiYkhKaDg2aExKNE0vNUUxOUF3V0orZWtxWWFFN3pI QWpJYgpwcXBoRXBXODRWRXZDMlVLVnRoVDN3ektWOHV2K25EWXltR0JsU0NIRWZ4UnpYWlFN U1BGVFNpMHRTeUF6U0U9Cj1LdUhoCi0tLS0tRU5EIFBHUCBTSUdOQVRVUkUtLS0tLQoK --------------020708090803070203060408-- From nobody Fri Feb 14 08:34:42 2014 Return-Path: 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 A06291A029E; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:34:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 9iJQZBtlS2co; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:34:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943D11A02E3; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:34:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140214163439.8133.81625.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 08:34:39 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/MqB_6JjZEuCO_sA9VCib1VTGbGo Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:34:41 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : LISP EID Block Management Guidelines Authors : Luigi Iannone Roger Jorgensen David Conrad Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2014-02-14 Abstract: This document proposes an allocation framework for the management of the LISP EID address prefix (requested in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-block]). The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the address space with sub-prefixes allocated on a temporary basis to requesting organizations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Feb 14 09:18:54 2014 Return-Path: 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 7A40F1A032A; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:18:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 BgzG4cD1HzfV; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:18:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCC11A02E8; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:18:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3150; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392398318; x=1393607918; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=lMc6RpgwQBzCylvUuGIojpSi6XJ2M14Xpu6zIq4jc5E=; b=R4yN+9nGOlxjvKBYnrbD5mBh6EA4FJiLEqqBYPmLMTZ5NtVAgDt8+hGd zrA/8iLheZgXWCLL8rl8dwYgsk6jQ5Lf/VaapzjcOdLpNzVUx+/bJdUV4 1VNWj6cWSnCgSDQYFUofvqxYZKr4YvZaPsBXRJp1Y4/ESEKk5mxkwn4ME M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUFAKVO/lKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABQCYMGOFe/MoEVFnSCJQEBAQR3AhACAQhGMhsBBgMCBAENBQmHfA3ISReOHlsHhDgEiRCPHIEykHGDLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,845,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="20523521" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2014 17:18:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1EHIbrJ001381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:18:37 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.4.6]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:18:37 -0600 From: "Yves Hertoghs (yhertogh)" To: "lisp@ietf.org" , "terry.manderson@icann.org" , "jmh@joelhalpern.com" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHPKagBYFsDgcP7ekiJC+FTu+8nHpq1c50A Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:18:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140214171225.20093.30555.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140214171225.20093.30555.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.61.160.206] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/u4W-9ytNxrKTBY2QylslVOoHLJc Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "Marc Binderberger \(mbinderb\)" Subject: [lisp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases-00.txt 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:18:43 -0000 Dear LISP WG, This is a new LISP Use Case draft, and this one is centered on how to use LISP for a number of network-based mobility use cases. We=B9d like to request comments on this. Terry/Joel, we=B9d also like a 5 minute slot at IETF89 to present this use case draft Yves On 14/02/14 18:12, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Yves Hertoghs and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases >Revision: 00 >Title: End Host Mobility Use Cases for LISP >Document date: 2014-02-14 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 17 >URL: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases >-00.txt >Status: =20 >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases/ >Htmlized: =20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hertoghs-lisp-mobility-use-cases-00 > > >Abstract: > This memo proposes use cases for LISP in the area of end Host > mobility. The applicability of end host mobility can be found in > data centers, where Virtual Machines (VM's) can be moved freely from > one physical server onto another physical server, independent of > location, without having to change the IP/MAC-addresses inside those > VMs, nor impacting traffic flows to and from those VMs. Wireless end > hosts are another area of applicability. Although this draft will > not address wireless end host mobility, most of the same principles > apply. > > Traditionally L2 extension technologies have been used to handle > mobility events, but they could lead to suboptimal routing of traffic > to and from the end host after the mobility event, as well as created > big broadcast domains. This memo describes how LISP solves the > traffic optimization issues caused by a mobility event of an end host > like a Virtual Machine, as it decouples the identity of the end host > from its location, such that traffic will always be forwarded to the > correct location. More-over the LISP control plane can be leveraged > to discover and distribute the reachability information of end hosts > such that end to end broadcast domains, and their associated > problems, are no longer needed. > > Various sub-use cases will be looked at in this draft, depending on > whether mobility is achieved at L2 (using MAC-addresses as EID) or at > L3 (using IP addresses as EIDs), and whether subnets are L2 extended > across LISP sites or not. This memo also describes how to handle > mobility in the case where the default gateway of the end host is not > capable of performing the LISP map-and-encap function, while the LISP > xTR function is located one or more L3 hops away from the default > gateway. > > > =20 > =20 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat > From nobody Fri Feb 14 11:13:52 2014 Return-Path: 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 E77C51A034A; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:13:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 zxiQTAZl5RRf; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:13:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08021A0356; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:13:16 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140214191316.9453.49340.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:13:16 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/GbcmMvBvOCyvou8UOQEuuZGB_NA Cc: lisp mailing list , lisp chair , RFC Editor Subject: [lisp] Document Action: 'LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-12.txt) X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:13:46 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations' (draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-12.txt) as Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-deployment/ Technical Summary: LISP is a protocol which can be used for different purposes. This draft describes how to deploy its associated network elements, in order to identify possible deployment scenarios and the additional requirements they may impose on the protocol specification and other protocols. This document is intended as a guide for the operational community for LISP deployments in their networks and is expected to evolve as LISP deployment progresses, and the described scenarios are better understood or new scenarios are discovered. Working Group Summary: There was no controversy nor any contentious issues during the WG process. The consensus was not rough and the draft came out as the result of a collective effort. Document Quality: There are multiple implementations of the protocol that am aware of. To my knowledge, at least one vendor has implemented the specification. The draft has received a fair amount of reviews and discussions without triggering any major change(s) in the document nor substantive issue(s). Personnel: - Document Shepherd: Wassim Haddad (Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com) - Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman (INTERNET Area Director) From nobody Fri Feb 14 12:07:05 2014 Return-Path: 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 F1B4A1A03B5 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:07:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 FtUvEfLeUdPM for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188471A0393 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:07:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1697; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392408418; x=1393618018; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GWdriaBs/bEX1Wo6f+xrL99JwIdOVIlYMz9mV0L+jl8=; b=V24/9IP3tWxOm+7CWSyMRdGNM4j+preiauiGNK4nm3SROEZZyrTDSSMK CI7G4aL2xW7XwTmavza0L2Wgc6taayeqHly3fBRx5TS8tYjAUlJrgjQOu OH0xbEozoa/h9vnOYTKRelByy7auKqSF4nc6d5HvojQJNC+3WoQZ906c4 U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAPN2/lKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABZgwY4V78vgRcWdIIlAQEBAwF3AhACAQhGMiUCBAENBQmHdAgNyEkXjiUhMweDJIEUBIkQjxyBMpBxgy2CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,846,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="304007076" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2014 20:06:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1EK6wxW030213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:06:58 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.47]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:06:58 -0600 From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" To: "lisp@ietf.org" , "terry.manderson@icann.org" , "jmh@joelhalpern.com" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-moreno-lisp-datacenter-deployment-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHPKavMdumAaIkJL0Sofwyj2m7qMJq1kduA Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:06:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1AE4B197-9B35-46F0-A0A8-D35EAF9FDFDF@cisco.com> References: <20140214173956.5770.5223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140214173956.5770.5223.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.27.62.38] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <19728EFEDF0BD842B4A2B6EA9BE6143D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/lJUlzIsBLVK0Q1ATITF-iOpTdrA Cc: "Satyam Sinha \(satysinh\)" , "Michael Smith \(michsmit\)" Subject: Re: [lisp] New Version Notification for draft-moreno-lisp-datacenter-deployment-00.txt 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: