From ggx@gigix.net Mon Sep 3 02:54:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB8921F84CF for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:54:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHy56swSVQH7 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508A121F84B3 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so1901950eek.31 for ; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:54:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=TjtvjcGkpMyAnpwLQOE3CM5FDbGLfgP+0YL136TmCq8=; b=UBVacVJATYZOa5r8oR7imRcgBQ95isOSgfHjA8V9llSTk04dNxiqmVFfla2flGQpxV TlrB8mRO5E/U1K06eVoR7QHOpOUM/QrPHp+MCaujUhH3feK/FyQymOP6Zn15rox7tSOG KvvdTiUQatODUx8/UqrNK00pFqvlweObAR5OgEXGI0t3ng/FFsTLmeDZcfETAedViSGv mjn9bdUEoRcjOf1U34ko8BlpAr3L3oPm/uuM/YnRzjmoRPL5tL+N1KW43JzytFAsKgSB QXQpbViLX4bMdU4FYxEHLISXIoRXfIDzFJhfFrNO0aCbvB2kmf+4YydpNqSMe9G9QuqV FvMA== Received: by 10.14.209.129 with SMTP id s1mr20763917eeo.24.1346666055387; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:1d30:7838:74a8:9041? ([2001:660:330f:a4:1d30:7838:74a8:9041]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r45sm34979214eem.6.2012.09.03.02.54.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <5040FE3D.50207@innovationslab.net> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:55:07 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <503F63F5.7030309@innovationslab.net> <503F6B1A.3000104@innovationslab.net> <5040FE3D.50207@innovationslab.net> To: Brian Haberman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYMafEKmlP13QE3P2ApP17V+a+TWwS5Hto4Bs6JFPPLSCwVV3L/+m8rt/GjaLCc42cg4oY Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@tools.ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] AD Review: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:54:17 -0000 Hi Brian, thanks for your reply. Agreed on the 2119 language. I will delete it and go back on normal = language. I understand as well that the text concerning the prefix size needs to = be somehow improved. Will do both. On 31 Aug. 2012, at 20:11 , Brian Haberman = wrote: [snip] >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> In addition, I know that all LISP work is marked as "experimental" >> but let's also keep in mind that there are companies out there that >> start making business out of LISP. >>=20 >=20 > That is their choice. True, but would be better to not penalise them. They are helping in = gaining knowledge on new technology. >=20 >>=20 >>> Should there be a termination date for this allocation? >>=20 >> I do not see IPv6 addressing space as a scarce resource, and for the >> same reasons I cited above I wouldn't put a termination date. >>=20 >> Obviously, IANA may decide to allocate the prefix only for a limited >> amount of time and decide in few years whether or not to make it a >> definitive allocation. >>=20 >=20 > That is definitely one possibility. >=20 Which the current draft does not prevent. Thanks again. Luigi > Regards, > Brian From ggx@gigix.net Mon Sep 3 02:55:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7248321F84D7 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:55:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nStn3Rdiivay for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C8021F84CF for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 02:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicr5 with SMTP id r5so2894428wic.13 for ; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:55:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=6yE8Nmanvqg8YKrA3XHu62hrJ2GkgxvITnkuS1m7/eY=; b=GJdrnkhudPxXYT5j+4OeTbEEYSr1mvecQ8+FbxrNMj4CBa9THZJhUXKqGUTPhhxcjq L9QcwpzCkQ2LnhDjDw9qtAeGaLi6sQrVWgwzI44bOKLH9AZrYxJX14RHLr0i/U81finU G0/LWEq0TyP7XwTcEnxXnNkgZRqxLGIPO6VrtFPbqpSvjsMK/WOCSrvdjYatdkWqk6dr Z90dMVO5eUAqp5hRQDHgMST9VxvWZ1PlGM689Vamx/HHXK93Ec1q1t1hCtiyDjTe2pg0 WeMFA9p4wVVtMBMLiO4mOSJlQjObmedm4exhDITnqxn6S+E3SlOVqNzNKLg5FwpkwYeI Hd+g== Received: by 10.180.108.45 with SMTP id hh13mr22026946wib.15.1346666123456; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp164-03.enst.fr (dhcp164-03.enst.fr. [137.194.165.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fb20sm26851071wid.1.2012.09.03.02.55.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <23ec01cd87a7$0ca105e0$25e311a0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 11:56:16 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <503F63F5.7030309@innovationslab.net> <503F6B1A.3000104@innovationslab.net> <23ec01cd87a7$0ca105e0$25e311a0$@olddog.co.uk> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk0sTB69jzb+aqz8cMpqa86x803duR5WKnsyZspzNCODiR4kjAypgmeM1Sc1Ng7UgCgfcp0 Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block@tools.ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] AD Review: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:55:25 -0000 Hi Adrian, I've got your point. As I already replied to Brian, the document will be modified to avoid = any 2119 language. ciao Luigi On 31 Aug. 2012, at 20:32 , Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Just cutting to the discussion of routing... >=20 >>>> The only suggestion I would make for this document is to drop = the >>>> use of the 2119 language. It is only used in a few places and = those >>>> uses are not really appropriate for 2119 language. I would suggest >>>> re-writing those guidelines with normal prose and drop the 2119 >>>> boilerplate from the document. >>=20 >> We tried not to use so much the 2119 language, but if you think it is = better > to >> drop it completely, this can be done. >>=20 >> But, what do you think about section 8 "Routing Consideration" ? = There, with >> 2119 language, we recommend that routers that do not support LISP do = not >> handle the prefix in any special way. WOuldn't be better to maintain = that > part? >=20 > I am not sure that this document can mandate the behavior of routers = that don't > support this document. So the use of must/should language in upper or = lower case > seem inappropriate. >=20 > Normally what we do is say: "Implementations that are not aware of = this special > feature will carry on processing as defined in [RFCfoo] with the = following > results..." >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com Tue Sep 4 09:21:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1591F21F84D3 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:21:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rrBIh+E0Hef4 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A8921F84CF for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q84GLI6C022342 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:21:18 -0500 Received: from XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-03.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.71.23]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q84GLHZa022324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:21:17 -0500 Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.71.23]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:21:16 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Noel Chiappa , "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:21:16 -0700 Thread-Topic: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 Thread-Index: AQHNh4MsF415waY9jkmN05M7yuMmwZd6V/Yg Message-ID: References: <20120813133258.BB02C18C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <641EE49757824F4BBE5F863B22FDDBF2130EB5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <641EE49757824F4BBE5F863B22FDDBF2130EB5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: No Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 04 Sep 2012 16:21:20 -0000 I have long maintained that what LISP is calling "EID" is not really an identifier but rather names a (virtual) interface the same as any IP address. Therefore, if the node has multiple independent (virtual) interfaces to which LISP EIDs must be assigned, it is not possible to say that only one of them is the "identity" of the endpoint. RFC4838 illustrates my point, where it defines the term Endpoint Identifier (EID) as: "a name, expressed using the general syntax of URIs (see below) that identifies a DTN endpoint". RFC4838 recognizes that an endpoint may connect to multiple Internets (e.g., the terrestrial Internet as we know it today and an interplanetary Internet that may come into existence in the future) where each such Internet may maintain an independent routing and addressing system. Therefore, an IP address that is relevant in Internet A may have no relevance in Internets B, C, D, etc. and cannot therefore be considered the "identity" of the endpoint. With a namespace like URIs that have nothing to do with routing and addressing, it is natural to have a single URI identity for such a "multi-internetted" endpoint. So, an endpoint known as "xyzzy" in the terrestrial Internet would still be known as "xyzzy" in any other Internet it might happen to connect to. I'm not sure I have any specific recommendations relative to this, but just to observe that the LISP EID is really just an IP address that only necessarily has relevance within the terrestrial Internet. A true EID (e.g., in the spirit of RFC4838) would have to be taken from some "neutral" namespace that has nothing to do with routing and addressing. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From rbonica@juniper.net Tue Sep 4 18:12:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331CF21F8455 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id peguRTcttKIB for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C73F21F842A for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEam+ArkqHe6u/zgC27PAQoM7JQjB7VH@postini.com; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:12:30 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:10:55 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:10:54 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: "Templin, Fred L" , Noel Chiappa , "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:10:53 -0400 Thread-Topic: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 Thread-Index: AQHNh4MsF415waY9jkmN05M7yuMmwZd6V/YggACby7A= Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782E34463@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <20120813133258.BB02C18C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <641EE49757824F4BBE5F863B22FDDBF2130EB5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 05 Sep 2012 01:12:31 -0000 Hi Fred, The term EID bothers me too, but for a different reason. The function of an= EID varies depending upon your location with respect the interface that th= e EID references. If you are behind the same ETR as the referenced interfac= e, the EID both locates and identifies the referenced interface. If you are= not behind the same ETR as the referenced interface, the EID only identifi= es the interface. At this point, it would be painful to start using a new term. Probably the = best that we can do is to point out that the term EID might be a bit of a m= isnomer. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Templin, Fred L > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:21 PM > To: Noel Chiappa; lisp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and > draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 >=20 > I have long maintained that what LISP is calling "EID" is not really an > identifier but rather names a (virtual) interface the same as any IP > address. Therefore, if the node has multiple independent (virtual) > interfaces to which LISP EIDs must be assigned, it is not possible to > say that only one of them is the "identity" of the endpoint. >=20 > RFC4838 illustrates my point, where it defines the term Endpoint > Identifier (EID) as: "a name, expressed using the general syntax of > URIs (see below) that identifies a DTN endpoint". RFC4838 recognizes > that an endpoint may connect to multiple Internets (e.g., the > terrestrial Internet as we know it today and an interplanetary Internet > that may come into existence in the future) where each such Internet > may maintain an independent routing and addressing system. Therefore, > an IP address that is relevant in Internet A may have no relevance in > Internets B, C, D, etc. and cannot therefore be considered the > "identity" of the endpoint. >=20 > With a namespace like URIs that have nothing to do with routing and > addressing, it is natural to have a single URI identity for such a > "multi-internetted" endpoint. So, an endpoint known as "xyzzy" in the > terrestrial Internet would still be known as "xyzzy" in any other > Internet it might happen to connect to. >=20 > I'm not sure I have any specific recommendations relative to this, but > just to observe that the LISP EID is really just an IP address that > only necessarily has relevance within the terrestrial Internet. A true > EID (e.g., in the spirit of > RFC4838) would have to be taken from some "neutral" namespace that has > nothing to do with routing and addressing. >=20 > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Sep 5 06:07:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8946221F847A for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TOU3mTi6aQrX for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E637821F848F for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D7BD018C0C6; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:07:45 -0400 (EDT) To: lisp@ietf.org Message-Id: <20120905130745.D7BD018C0C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:07:45 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 05 Sep 2012 13:07:47 -0000 {Sorry I've been silent for a while - been taking a break.} > From: "Templin, Fred L" > I have long maintained that what LISP is calling "EID" is not really an > identifier We've been around and around on this many times, and while the first few did I think introduce some useful light, I think we're probably past the diminishing returns at this point? Believe it or not, this is a point on which I do have some sympathy: some people may recognize one of my favourite quotations, which I have used in a number of places: "I am far from thinking that nomenclature is a remedy for every defect in art or science: still I cannot but feel that confusion of terms generally springs from, and always leads to, confusion of ideas." -- John Louis Petit, "Architectural Studies in France", 1854 Was 'EID' the best term to use? Perhaps not (although the difficulty in introducing a new terms should not be ignored). I am moved to mark the irony that while people continually complain over this re-use of the term 'EID', I have yet to hear almost _anyone_ (other than me) complain about the re-use of the term 'locator', which was clearly defined to mean 'location sensitive name _which does not necessarily appear in every packet_' (see Nimrod WG archives: http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/nimrod/1993Sep-Dec.txt where we found that we needed a new word as we found that people couldn't free their minds from the assumption that an 'address' was something which _had_ to appear in every packet - we had at that point yet to grasp that their was an equal difficulty in people being sensitive to the fact that 'addresses' a la IPvN embodied both location _and_ identity - which is yet _another_ example of terminology being warped). So the term 'locator' is continually mis-used in the IETF (see, e.g. RFC-2373 "IPv6 Addressing Architecture", RFC-2956 "Overview of 1999 IAB Network Layer Workshop"), but somehow nobody has a similar-sized problem with that. Why is that? Which is not to say, of course, that one wrong excuses another; multiple definitions can indeed, as Petit observes, cause confusion. But I am somewhat peeved at what I see as disparate treatment in the two cases. > if the node has multiple independent (virtual) interfaces to which LISP > EIDs must be assigned, it is not possible to say that only one of them > is the "identity" of the endpoint Suppose I had an architecture with 'true' EIDS. Suppose further that I assigned a single node multiple 'true' EIDs. Which one is the 'identity' of the node? Noel From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Sep 5 06:21:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A5221F85ED for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:21:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E9IrCrXiIVM2 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3DD21F85F0 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 2135C18C0C6; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:21:21 -0400 (EDT) To: lisp@ietf.org Message-Id: <20120905132121.2135C18C0C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:21:21 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 05 Sep 2012 13:21:22 -0000 > From: Ronald Bonica > The function of an EID varies depending upon your location ... If you > are behind the same ETR as the referenced interface, the EID both > locates and identifies the referenced interface. If you are not behind > the same ETR as the referenced interface, the EID only identifies the > interface. Yes and no. Ironically, the need to interact with existing hosts means that in a scope around the 'other' host (more on this in a second), the EID _also_ needs to have some 'routability' - otherwise the packet cannot be forwarded to the destination. The size of that scope varies. If the other host is also in a LISP site, it might reach only to that site's ITR. If the site is a legacy site, connected directly to the DFZ, there must be a route in the DFZ. Etc, etc. > Probably the best that we can do is to point out that the term EID > might be a bit of a misnomer. The "Architectural Perspective" document contains a fairly extensive discussion of this issue ("5.1. LISP EIDs"). There is a warning cross-reference to that discussion in the "Introduction" document ("3. LISP Overview"), although I do note that that warning is not replicated immediately below when the term EID is introduced ("3.1. Basic Approach"). Would people like to see me add an additional warning (and cross-reference) at the point at which the term 'EID' is introduced? I don't know if it's important enough to disturb the flow of the text, but I don't have any significant objection to so doing if it's important enough. Noel From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com Wed Sep 5 08:47:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F195721F8543 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ouFap945ch3N for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D0221F8526 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q85Fm6Ps017168 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:48:06 -0700 Received: from XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.70.222]) by blv-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id q85Fm5Er017137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:48:06 -0700 Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.70.222]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:47:57 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Noel Chiappa , "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:47:57 -0700 Thread-Topic: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 Thread-Index: Ac2LZ3QD6ilI/W+9RH6m26KyxVMYQwAEyNEw Message-ID: References: <20120905130745.D7BD018C0C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20120905130745.D7BD018C0C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: No Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 05 Sep 2012 15:48:00 -0000 Hi Noel, > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 6:08 AM > To: lisp@ietf.org > Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu > Subject: RE: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and > draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 >=20 > {Sorry I've been silent for a while - been taking a break.} >=20 > > From: "Templin, Fred L" >=20 > > I have long maintained that what LISP is calling "EID" is not reall= y > an > > identifier >=20 > We've been around and around on this many times, and while the first few > did I > think introduce some useful light, I think we're probably past the > diminishing > returns at this point? I think a couple of examples such as the one I gave are useful and can shed new light. See below for a second example. > Believe it or not, this is a point on which I do have some sympathy: some > people may recognize one of my favourite quotations, which I have used in > a > number of places: >=20 > "I am far from thinking that nomenclature is a remedy for every defect > in > art or science: still I cannot but feel that confusion of terms > generally > springs from, and always leads to, confusion of ideas." >=20 > -- John Louis Petit, "Architectural Studies in France", 1854 >=20 > Was 'EID' the best term to use? Perhaps not (although the difficulty in > introducing a new terms should not be ignored). >=20 >=20 > I am moved to mark the irony that while people continually complain over > this > re-use of the term 'EID', I have yet to hear almost _anyone_ (other than > me) > complain about the re-use of the term 'locator', which was clearly define= d > to > mean 'location sensitive name _which does not necessarily appear in every > packet_' (see Nimrod WG archives: >=20 > http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/nimrod/1993Sep-Dec.txt >=20 > where we found that we needed a new word as we found that people couldn't > free their minds from the assumption that an 'address' was something whic= h > _had_ to appear in every packet - we had at that point yet to grasp that > their was an equal difficulty in people being sensitive to the fact that > 'addresses' a la IPvN embodied both location _and_ identity - which is ye= t > _another_ example of terminology being warped). >=20 > So the term 'locator' is continually mis-used in the IETF (see, e.g. RFC- > 2373 > "IPv6 Addressing Architecture", RFC-2956 "Overview of 1999 IAB Network > Layer > Workshop"), but somehow nobody has a similar-sized problem with that. Why > is > that? >=20 > Which is not to say, of course, that one wrong excuses another; multiple > definitions can indeed, as Petit observes, cause confusion. But I am > somewhat > peeved at what I see as disparate treatment in the two cases. >=20 >=20 > > if the node has multiple independent (virtual) interfaces to which > LISP > > EIDs must be assigned, it is not possible to say that only one of > them > > is the "identity" of the endpoint >=20 > Suppose I had an architecture with 'true' EIDS. Suppose further that I > assigned a single node multiple 'true' EIDs. Which one is the 'identity' > of the node? As a second example, in the aviation industry today planes are being rigged for three different and disjoint communications domains - Air Traffic Control (ATC), Airline Operations Control (AOC) and Passenger domain (some also consider Airline Administrative Control (AAC) as a fourth domain). The FAA and Eurocontrol are deploying ATC as an independent internetwork known as the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) which in its first instantiation will use the OSI TP4/CLNP protocol stack instead of IP. One of the reasons given for this was that using a totally different protocol suite would prevent internet hackers from taking over an airplane if wires were accidentally crossed. So, the ATN is a separate Internet from the airline network that supports AOC, and the airline network is a separate Internet from the Passenger domain, which connects to the public Internet. That's three different Internets (one of which doesn't even use IP), and three different EIDs if something like LISP is used. But, the plane is still known by only one identifier (e.g., "Anonymous Airlines Flight 93"). Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com =20 > Noel From rbonica@juniper.net Wed Sep 5 19:28:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064AA21F8540 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdIzQapQ4V7C for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com (exprod7og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F9D21F84D8 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob112.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEgKLJjN63XwUsdjTd23DO+PcWnbY/3l@postini.com; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:27:58 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:23:12 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:23:12 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:23:11 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Noel Chiappa , "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 22:23:10 -0400 Thread-Topic: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 Thread-Index: Ac2LaVkDn0CmPqTiRpmtimxsKK1asgAazycA Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782F2F7B7@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <20120905132121.2135C18C0C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20120905132121.2135C18C0C6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption of draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01 and draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Sep 2012 02:28:00 -0000 Hi Noel, You're right. The introduction document contains references to Section 5.1.= 1 of the architecture document. Section 5.1.1 of the architecture document = talks about exactly the issue that I raised. So, we are fine as is. Ron >=20 > The "Architectural Perspective" document contains a fairly extensive > discussion of this issue ("5.1. LISP EIDs"). >=20 > There is a warning cross-reference to that discussion in the > "Introduction" > document ("3. LISP Overview"), although I do note that that warning is > not replicated immediately below when the term EID is introduced ("3.1. > Basic Approach"). >=20 > Would people like to see me add an additional warning (and cross- > reference) at the point at which the term 'EID' is introduced? I don't > know if it's important enough to disturb the flow of the text, but I > don't have any significant objection to so doing if it's important > enough. From yakov@juniper.net Thu Sep 6 07:00:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5BB21F863F; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cu3QULk+8HlU; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3F621F863C; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEisVq6P2kIBNj2AAfsl4HNrT7cCwPMR@postini.com; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:00:11 PDT Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:55:57 -0700 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q86Dtuh27671; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <201209061355.q86Dtuh27671@magenta.juniper.net> To: Terry Manderson In-Reply-To: References: X-MH-In-Reply-To: Terry Manderson message dated "Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:28:20 -0700." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <71749.1346939756.1@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:55:56 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: LISP mailing list list , iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Sep 2012 14:00:12 -0000 Terry, > I view that there is consensus in the workgroup to adopt this draft as a > work group item. > > Can the authors please submit a revision in the appropriate fashion. > > I'd also like to remind the authors that as a WG document I am expecting > that any substantive document changes are the result of WG discussion. > > I would also like to call the WG's attention to the comments regarding code > points for transport of other protocols and ask the WG to consider those > comments in the process of developing this draft. I note that you have called consensus to adopt draft-farinacci- lisp-lcaf as a LISP working group document. This document describes its use for L2VPN. Could you please explain where this is covered in the current LISP working group charter. Yakov. From jmh@joelhalpern.com Thu Sep 6 10:06:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2E721F874F; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T+e7IHgQpJBp; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D5F21F86A8; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AD755892E; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794281C9F38; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:06:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.1.20] (pool-108-2-221-176.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [108.2.221.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD3841C049B; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5048D819.1080706@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:06:33 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lisp@ietf.org" , "karp@ietf.org" References: <20120906002129.10667.70960.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120906002129.10667.70960.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120906002129.10667.70960.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [lisp] Fwd: Help the NomCom: Nominations and Feedback X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Sep 2012 17:06:41 -0000 Please help the community. Thank you, Joel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Help the NomCom: Nominations and Feedback Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:21:29 -0700 From: NomCom Chair To: Working Group Chairs The IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom) is currently seeking nominations for individuals to serve on the IESG, IAB, and IAOC. Additionally, this is an announcement that the NomCom is seeking feedback on individuals who have accepted nominations for IETF leadership positions. It is very important to the NomCom process that we get input from a broad spectrum of the community. Therefore, in case members of your working group do not read the IETF announcement and discussion lists, the NomCom would appreciate your help in disseminating the following information. The NomCom website contains information about this year's NomCom including the positions we are seeking to fill, and the qualifications required for these positions: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/ The NomCom is accepting nominations until September 24. Nominations for any position can be made using the following web tool: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/nominate Feedback about individuals who the NomCom is considering can be providing using the following web tool: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/input The feedback tool provides a list of individuals who have agreed to be considered for each position. We will be updating this list in the coming weeks as more individuals accept nominations. Feedback provided to the NomCom is kept strictly confidential! Note that use of the NomCom web tools require an ietf.org (i.e., datatracker) account. You can create an ietf.org account by visiting the following URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/accounts/create/ As an alternative to using the web tools, you can send email to the NomCom at nomcom12@ietf.org to make a nomination or provide input to the committee. Thank you for your help, - Matt Lepinski nomcom-chair@ietf.org From terry.manderson@icann.org Thu Sep 6 17:43:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9979421F84C8; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfsO7jXKXtzV; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D15D21F849A; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:34 -0700 From: Terry Manderson To: Yakov Rekhter Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:43:31 -0700 Thread-Topic: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 Thread-Index: Ac2MN+93uvNS61ZOShe1mmHwXkYGpgAWd4Sx Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201209061355.q86Dtuh27671@magenta.juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3429859411_75211349" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: LISP mailing list list , "iesg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 07 Sep 2012 00:43:35 -0000 --B_3429859411_75211349 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Yakov, I disagree with you that it describes its use for L2VPN. It provides the ability to use a MAC as an EID. There are no normative verbs used, and noting the experimental nature of the draft I must admit that I am struggling to see the basis for your objection given that the LCAF draft is an underlying modification to the LISP control messages (in that it does fall in the mandate of the charter). Putting on my 'research advocacy' hat, and highlighting that all of the protocol documents issued by LISP are chartered to be experimental, I feel perfectly comfortable having the documents from the LISP experiment not shy away from the existence of, or the possibility of, encapsulating other address formats. I will draw a line the minute the LISP WG attempts to impose or change behaviors on the documented work from another chartered WG, and will happily direct (as written in the charter) any such work to the appropriate WG. Cheers Terry On 6/09/12 11:55 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" wrote: > Terry, > >> I view that there is consensus in the workgroup to adopt this draft as a >> work group item. >> >> Can the authors please submit a revision in the appropriate fashion. >> >> I'd also like to remind the authors that as a WG document I am expecting >> that any substantive document changes are the result of WG discussion. >> >> I would also like to call the WG's attention to the comments regarding code >> points for transport of other protocols and ask the WG to consider those >> comments in the process of developing this draft. > > I note that you have called consensus to adopt draft-farinacci- > lisp-lcaf as a LISP working group document. This document describes > its use for L2VPN. Could you please explain where this is covered > in the current LISP working group charter. > > Yakov. --B_3429859411_75211349 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIIQAQYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIP8jCCD+4CAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC Dc0wggcDMIIF66ADAgECAhAPz2lJUZsAlD35l4oJxf0FMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xITAfBgNVBAMTGERpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EtMTAeFw0xMjAzMjcwMDAw MDBaFw0xNTAzMjcxMjAwMDBaMIGsMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5p YTEXMBUGA1UEBxMOTWFyaW5hIGRlbCBSZXkxPDA6BgNVBAoTM0ludGVybmV0IENvcnBvcmF0 aW9uIGZvciBBc3NpZ25lZCBOYW1lcyBhbmQgTnVtYmVyczEXMBUGA1UECxMORE5TIE9wZXJh dGlvbnMxGDAWBgNVBAMTD1RlcnJ5IE1hbmRlcnNvbjCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBAKRhZ4W3U6MnfS2woYEFCIyN+g1MNILokbUKk+PTl5mmK3QtWQxTSOu2sdzN xHMy6p2RoT9BMGOamttFq2WswSru6/7JT1TflytGaPHfK5kMP/pI47hmcwUEm9Z169I5ar7z BTiEAQA06cGKtgJ8XiiLFUIHLVuRq3WGxjnFTHlAHXY6mdgDT/ntAnoEvvPVm4XqUnjJiZTS ojzyr1q2RqFvyXs2blOARumDqvLI33yLGcUuaEL+A+hgodzM/fL4kdoy964mXvmEerpm4d4f Y/JfbRUWxc0Eomu9nwGFNk6ijO41qk+OIboct2qeA+5PPclXJNNHYVfzT2dyWfGgxaMCAwEA AaOCA2gwggNkMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFBUAEisTmLKZB+0e36K+Vw0rZwLNMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSz wvR2YXpP9XjS9cknMX5g3LM2jTAkBgNVHREEHTAbgRl0ZXJyeS5tYW5kZXJzb25AaWNhbm4u b3JnMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwfQYD VR0fBHYwdDA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJl ZElEQ0EtMS5jcmwwOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmw0LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFz c3VyZWRJRENBLTEuY3JsMIIBxQYDVR0gBIIBvDCCAbgwggG0BgpghkgBhv1sBAECMIIBpDA6 BggrBgEFBQcCARYuaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vc3NsLWNwcy1yZXBvc2l0b3J5 Lmh0bTCCAWQGCCsGAQUFBwICMIIBVh6CAVIAQQBuAHkAIAB1AHMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABp AHMAIABDAGUAcgB0AGkAZgBpAGMAYQB0AGUAIABjAG8AbgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAdABlAHMAIABh AGMAYwBlAHAAdABhAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABEAGkAZwBpAEMAZQByAHQAIABD AFAALwBDAFAAUwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABSAGUAbAB5AGkAbgBnACAAUABhAHIAdAB5 ACAAQQBnAHIAZQBlAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgAIABsAGkAbQBpAHQAIABsAGkAYQBi AGkAbABpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQByAGUAIABpAG4AYwBvAHIAcABvAHIAYQB0AGUAZAAg AGgAZQByAGUAaQBuACAAYgB5ACAAcgBlAGYAZQByAGUAbgBjAGUALjB3BggrBgEFBQcBAQRr MGkwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTBBBggrBgEFBQcwAoY1 aHR0cDovL2NhY2VydHMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEQ0EtMS5jcnQw DAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAYpwxK/KvdhbyQqrKp2ylMQpNzqVH ofo4hPILTnp/o+UyYVn6daWSilaV+XNBzE5Rm/f7ms2iA1zBzOvGv55pLH0n6lgIRTeuAGzf KIsPCwPvYQkkMAPXHzh9A44m19hvigTgOPNyjzcOTiHqwwCJSDTEZx17CEkrzQPq1vfG1Lvk +AWjEtxCsGmsuCHHaZjwQ8SsGI7W5cA1Y4RTcQf6S9eIpSsOwXIYdDgWq9Uhi/amW7ryW06Y GH7BHaitqgmm32MZuid3UzJUU6+Ljx7uGA9Fe6k1uPEHhaXTAoobPSpPdOgGmnxUCRQu2OI7 +I8vHiSe7DC/LmxEDC5kB+lUTjCCBsIwggWqoAMCAQICEAoE3yF0XU0rjOozcgUAUOkwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcG A1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBS b290IENBMB4XDTA2MTExMDAwMDAwMFoXDTIxMTExMDAwMDAwMFowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEhMB8G A1UEAxMYRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQS0xMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEA6IItmfnKwkKVpYBzQHDSnlZUXKnE0kEGj8kz/E1FkVyBn+0snPgWWd+etSQV wpi5tHdJ3InECtqvy15r7a2wcTHrzzpADEZNk+yLejYIA6sMNP4YSYL+x8cxSIB8HqIPkg5Q ycaH6zY/2DDD/6b3+6LNb3Mj/qxWBZDwMiEWicZwiPkFl32jx0PdAug7Pe2xQaPtP77blUjE 7h6z8rwMK5nQxl0SQoHhg26Ccz8mSxSQrllmCsSNvtLOBq6thG9IhJtPQLnxTPKvmPv2zkBd XPao8S+v7Iki8msYZbHBc63X8djPHgp0XEK4aH631XcKJ1Z8D2KkPzIUYJX9BwSiCQIDAQAB o4IDbzCCA2swDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgGGMDsGA1UdJQQ0MDIGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEFBQcD AgYIKwYBBQUHAwMGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDCDCCAcYGA1UdIASCAb0wggG5MIIBtQYL YIZIAYb9bAEDAAQwggGkMDoGCCsGAQUFBwIBFi5odHRwOi8vd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9z c2wtY3BzLXJlcG9zaXRvcnkuaHRtMIIBZAYIKwYBBQUHAgIwggFWHoIBUgBBAG4AeQAgAHUA cwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAEMAZQByAHQAaQBmAGkAYwBhAHQAZQAgAGMAbwBuAHMA dABpAHQAdQB0AGUAcwAgAGEAYwBjAGUAcAB0AGEAbgBjAGUAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAEQA aQBnAGkAQwBlAHIAdAAgAEMAUAAvAEMAUABTACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIAZQBsAHkA aQBuAGcAIABQAGEAcgB0AHkAIABBAGcAcgBlAGUAbQBlAG4AdAAgAHcAaABpAGMAaAAgAGwA aQBtAGkAdAAgAGwAaQBhAGIAaQBsAGkAdAB5ACAAYQBuAGQAIABhAHIAZQAgAGkAbgBjAG8A cgBwAG8AcgBhAHQAZQBkACAAaABlAHIAZQBpAG4AIABiAHkAIAByAGUAZgBlAHIAZQBuAGMA ZQAuMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wfQYIKwYBBQUHAQEEcTBvMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRw Oi8vb2NzcC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20wRwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGO2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQu Y29tL0NBQ2VydHMvRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290Q0EuY3J0MIGBBgNVHR8EejB4MDqg OKA2hjRodHRwOi8vY3JsMy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290Q0Eu Y3JsMDqgOKA2hjRodHRwOi8vY3JsNC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURS b290Q0EuY3JsMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQVABIrE5iymQftHt+ivlcNK2cCzTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBRF 66Kv9JLLgjEtUYunpyGd823IDzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAhGFOQR64dgQqtbbvj/JV hbldVv4KmObkvWWKfUAp0/yxXUX9OrgqWzNLJFzNubTkc61hXXatdDOKZtUjr0wfcm5F2XVA u6I7z41JL8BBsOIpo1E4Q1CZFKwzBjViiX13qVIH5WwgV7aBum+8s8KU7XYCgNl8zoWoHOzH Q0pLsVfPcs7f9SU8yyJP/Z9S0TfLCLs4PuDVPm95Ca1bfDGzdzXD5GP5aAqYB+dGOHeE0j6X vAqgqKwlT0RukeHSWq9r7zAcjaNEQrMQiyP61+Y1dDesz+urWB/JiCP/NtQH6jRqR+qdlWye KU9T7eMrlSBOKs+WYHr4LIDwlVLOKZaBYjGCAfwwggH4AgEBMHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEhMB8G A1UEAxMYRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQS0xAhAPz2lJUZsAlD35l4oJxf0FMAkGBSsO AwIaBQCgXTAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUqRydjNCRTWKI1X5lqZhlkPom+9cwGAYJKoZIhvcN AQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTIwOTA3MDA0MzMxWjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQAMFtSeQoR81CGpd1ssYSMmIGPttL2dC41hwnSHdJZe69gyrGqhpUzJHkgc wgyeNaez5WLSgEQ5gmEdh62kJu5QiFWDxoxn+eG4ngoXLmkHDmmN3AGEjpHoYUSm8cVbRK8D jIrb+ktOcSdDO/T6RBXP8j2KIXxd1kkZgD2m+4MNr0jADoX6h8obndJZZWP0Za4WWlyjYSWo RKzjRXCyu3vKqU6z6u9y2xnYMZIgr7p1kzm4ObLFEn4ckdNIQt48RiVs/twcEXapJG+hMzAp ReCcjY4GR967ypP60tnHz26aZWMrSXLAl+tvDdFT7aQJaEhGTBqzaZGvTy/es28yQIEM --B_3429859411_75211349-- From rcallon@juniper.net Fri Sep 7 08:24:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5B921F8697 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0mD-SV3IOXRP for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E7021F8681 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEoRmu/F3EZ7fqdEKLdFGyNUhocxygbh@postini.com; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:24:31 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:19:53 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:19:52 -0400 From: Ross Callon To: Terry Manderson Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:19:50 -0400 Thread-Topic: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 Thread-Index: Ac2MN+93uvNS61ZOShe1mmHwXkYGpgAWd4SxAB5kh6A= Message-ID: References: <201209061355.q86Dtuh27671@magenta.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 07 Sep 2012 15:24:32 -0000 I find this email confusing. Can you explain when you would use a MAC ID as= the EID, and yet *not* have this be an L2VPN? Routing packets based on a M= AC ID over a layer 3 network seems to me to be pretty close to the definiti= on of a layer 2 VPN.=20 Thanks, Ross PS: I dropped the IESG from the CC line since I don't think that the entire= IESG wants to follow this.=20 -----Original Message----- From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ter= ry Manderson Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:44 PM To: Yakov Rekhter Cc: LISP mailing list list; iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 Hi Yakov, I disagree with you that it describes its use for L2VPN. It provides the ability to use a MAC as an EID. There are no normative verbs used, and noting the experimental nature of the draft I must admit that I am struggling to see the basis for your objection given that the LCAF draft is an underlying modification to the LISP control messages (in that it does fall in the mandate of the charter). Putting on my 'research advocacy' hat, and highlighting that all of the protocol documents issued by LISP are chartered to be experimental, I feel perfectly comfortable having the documents from the LISP experiment not shy away from the existence of, or the possibility of, encapsulating other address formats. I will draw a line the minute the LISP WG attempts to impose or change behaviors on the documented work from another chartered WG, and will happil= y direct (as written in the charter) any such work to the appropriate WG. Cheers Terry On 6/09/12 11:55 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" wrote: > Terry, >=20 >> I view that there is consensus in the workgroup to adopt this draft as a >> work group item. >>=20 >> Can the authors please submit a revision in the appropriate fashion. >>=20 >> I'd also like to remind the authors that as a WG document I am expecting >> that any substantive document changes are the result of WG discussion. >>=20 >> I would also like to call the WG's attention to the comments regarding c= ode >> points for transport of other protocols and ask the WG to consider those >> comments in the process of developing this draft. >=20 > I note that you have called consensus to adopt draft-farinacci- > lisp-lcaf as a LISP working group document. This document describes > its use for L2VPN. Could you please explain where this is covered > in the current LISP working group charter. >=20 > Yakov. From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Sep 7 19:53:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FB521E80C4 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:53:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xzvoECu2CY2O for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A1221E80A1 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01772558089 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A94A1C0351; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-51-156.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA6D31C044F; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <504AB307.7020104@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:52:55 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Callon References: <201209061355.q86Dtuh27671@magenta.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 02:53:03 -0000 The definition of how to actually perform such forwarding would have to be done in (or in close collaboration with) the L2VPN WG. This document does not define how that is done. It reserves a code point for identifying the specific kind of information, if someone does want to do it. I have sent a notification to the chairs of all the related working groups that I could identify to let them know of this document. Yours, Joel On 9/7/2012 11:19 AM, Ross Callon wrote: > I find this email confusing. Can you explain when you would use a MAC ID as the EID, and yet *not* have this be an L2VPN? Routing packets based on a MAC ID over a layer 3 network seems to me to be pretty close to the definition of a layer 2 VPN. > > Thanks, Ross > > PS: I dropped the IESG from the CC line since I don't think that the entire IESG wants to follow this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Terry Manderson > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:44 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter > Cc: LISP mailing list list; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [lisp] Call for adoption of draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10 > > Hi Yakov, > > I disagree with you that it describes its use for L2VPN. It provides the > ability to use a MAC as an EID. There are no normative verbs used, and > noting the experimental nature of the draft I must admit that I am > struggling to see the basis for your objection given that the LCAF draft is > an underlying modification to the LISP control messages (in that it does > fall in the mandate of the charter). > > Putting on my 'research advocacy' hat, and highlighting that all of the > protocol documents issued by LISP are chartered to be experimental, I feel > perfectly comfortable having the documents from the LISP experiment not shy > away from the existence of, or the possibility of, encapsulating other > address formats. > > I will draw a line the minute the LISP WG attempts to impose or change > behaviors on the documented work from another chartered WG, and will happily > direct (as written in the charter) any such work to the appropriate WG. > > Cheers > Terry > > > > On 6/09/12 11:55 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" wrote: > >> Terry, >> >>> I view that there is consensus in the workgroup to adopt this draft as a >>> work group item. >>> >>> Can the authors please submit a revision in the appropriate fashion. >>> >>> I'd also like to remind the authors that as a WG document I am expecting >>> that any substantive document changes are the result of WG discussion. >>> >>> I would also like to call the WG's attention to the comments regarding code >>> points for transport of other protocols and ask the WG to consider those >>> comments in the process of developing this draft. >> >> I note that you have called consensus to adopt draft-farinacci- >> lisp-lcaf as a LISP working group document. This document describes >> its use for L2VPN. Could you please explain where this is covered >> in the current LISP working group charter. >> >> Yakov. > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Sep 11 05:59:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4DF21F87BF for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hocXdf9-BPHZ for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A14B21F87C3 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAGAzT1CHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABFu1CBB4IgAQEBAQMBAQEPHgo0CwwEAgEIDQQEAQELBgwLAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCBqHbgueRZ1TBIsQhUZgA5teihyCaA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,404,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="324259937" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2012 08:54:45 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2012 08:37:54 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:59:03 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3A441BB0-B467-4670-891E-FC2DA81E6834@steffann.nl> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 Thread-Index: Ac2Fyad23RMsPpcqQrCUf7bvGuF+MQKUJvsQ References: <3A441BB0-B467-4670-891E-FC2DA81E6834@steffann.nl> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Sander Steffann" , "Terry Manderson" Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 12:59:08 -0000 Hi, There are a few issues that need to be corrected and clarified before submitting this document to the IESG. There may be more, but I did not have the time to perform a full MIB Doctor review, this is what I found at a first pass reading of the document. - Runing smilint indicates a number of problems - most derive from the fact that indices of many table are of the SYNTAX of Integer32 with no range restriction - LispAddressType TC is defined as a four-tuple with several variants - how can it have 0 as its lower size?=20 - Having a REFERENCE clause that says "[LISP]" is not useful. People may use the MIB module but not the RFC, and even if they know what the reference is just one high level reference is useless. To be useful to implementers REFERENCE clauses of specific objects must point to the exact paragraphs that define the origin of the MIB definition in the LIPS RFC=20 - Some of the Integer objects have obviously a range, but this is not specified - for example lispMapCacheLocatorRlocPriority or lispMapCacheLocatorRlocWeight - The indexation of lispIidToVrfTable seems broken - if the value of VPNIdOrZero is zero because a VPN ID could not be determined, how are to rows in such situation distinguished?=20 - There is no discontinuity indicator for the (many) counter objects in the MIB module. See section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181 for some advice on this issue - IANA Considerations - IANA must allocate a branch under mib-2 for this MIB module (marked xxx in the MIB module) Regards, Dan =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Sander Steffann > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:36 PM > To: Terry Manderson > Cc: LISP mailing list list > Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > > I have not seen any review nor comments made of this document in this > > WGLC by anyone in the WG. > > > > I am extending this last call by a further 14 days. > > > > The extended LC will end on Tuesday the 11th of September. Please WG, > > cast your eyes over this document, it cannot progress without adequate > review! >=20 > I don't see anything wrong with the document. It would have been nice if > notifications had been defined, for example for (certain) changes to > lispEidRegistrationTable, lispMappingDatabaseTable and > lispMappingDatabaseLocatorTable. But everything that is defined in the > document looks good! >=20 > Thanks, > Sander >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From jmh@joelhalpern.com Tue Sep 11 11:38:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C07621F84D6 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bmJkWyT78xnv for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0911421F84DC for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AA75584B2 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246532409DB for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:38:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-52-249.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B87972409DA for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <504F8503.2080305@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:37:55 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lisp@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [lisp] intro & architecture drafts X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 18:38:06 -0000 draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction and draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture have been adopted as working group documents. While they will eventually be named draft-ietf-lisp..., there is no reason to wait on that for discussion, review, comment, etc... Particularly, it would be very helpful if folks see issues that need more discussion in those drafts, so we can discuss them on the list, and thus know if we also need to discuss them in Atlanta. As chair, I would like to see these drafts progress quickly, as they will gate other work the working group would like to do. Comments please? Thank you, Joel From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Sep 11 11:42:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A5321F861F for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:42:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.606 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.496, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTU6aK3zCg9t for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E90021F8617 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 448B018C0D3; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:42:56 -0400 (EDT) To: lisp@ietf.org Message-Id: <20120911184256.448B018C0D3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [lisp] intro & architecture drafts X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 18:42:58 -0000 > From: "Joel M. Halpern" > Comments please? FWIW, we did get two very useful sets of comments (to which I have yet to reply; my apologies, I've been off busy working on something else: http://www.yoshitoshi.net/triptychs.html if anyone really wants to know :-). But more would be useful and appreciated... Noel From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Sep 11 15:09:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DBF21E8049; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:09:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZKA4GBl+Upk; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F4221E803C; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:09:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120911220940.31300.10806.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:09:40 -0700 Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-02.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 22:09:41 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : LISP Threats Analysis Author(s) : Damien Saucez Luigi Iannone Olivier Bonaventure Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-threats-02.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-09-11 Abstract: This document analyzes the threats against the security of the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol and proposes a set of recommendations to mitigate some of the identified security risks. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-threats There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-threats-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-lisp-threats-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From gschudel@cisco.com Tue Sep 11 17:38:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFF421E8043 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bGMHJaCR37ih for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB90C21E8037 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:38:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2442; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347410304; x=1348619904; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nGj66IQrAJKC9Wj61gH1M7UPXYmtQtXmqzd31IK6LrA=; b=PXaB00s21x3dY/Mc98jGa9TdOZ2eqxRsvEtJe1WMz3NTBWRbTmHvMLIz yC6UTDVmTVP/Nk3uvURbegKcJJLHi+DD/QyYj+KkFdN+EpEDj5HFqGh5c 26ikUy43YymYeW0WkOYYgYr9oB1q/alURxbkx7cdl2HNZyt7cTKhZqqcW E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJHYT1CtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABCA7tVgQeCIAEBAQMBEgElQAEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBQIBAR6HaAYLm0OgXI4SgyQDiCA1jQqONoFngwaBQw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,407,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="120592700" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2012 00:38:23 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8C0cN80007402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:38:23 GMT Received: from gschudel-mac-2.local (10.21.71.195) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (173.37.183.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:38:23 -0500 Message-ID: <504FD97D.4020804@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:38:21 -0700 From: Gregg Schudel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: <3A441BB0-B467-4670-891E-FC2DA81E6834@steffann.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.21.71.195] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19178.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.812300-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 00:38:24 -0000 Thank you for the comments Dan On 9/11/12 5:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > There are a few issues that need to be corrected and clarified before > submitting this document to the IESG. There may be more, but I did not > have the time to perform a full MIB Doctor review, this is what I found > at a first pass reading of the document. > > - Runing smilint indicates a number of problems - most derive from the > fact that indices of many table are of the SYNTAX of Integer32 with no > range restriction thanks - fixed. (added ranges) > - LispAddressType TC is defined as a four-tuple with several variants - > how can it have 0 as its lower size? thanks - fixed. > - Having a REFERENCE clause that says "[LISP]" is not useful. People may > use the MIB module but not the RFC, and even if they know what the > reference is just one high level reference is useless. To be useful to > implementers REFERENCE clauses of specific objects must point to the > exact paragraphs that define the origin of the MIB definition in the > LIPS RFC thanks - fixed. added pertinent references w/ sections. > - Some of the Integer objects have obviously a range, but this is not > specified - for example lispMapCacheLocatorRlocPriority or > lispMapCacheLocatorRlocWeight thanks - fixed. added ranges. > - The indexation of lispIidToVrfTable seems broken - if the value of > VPNIdOrZero is zero because a VPN ID could not be determined, how are to > rows in such situation distinguished? thanks - fixed. added index. > - There is no discontinuity indicator for the (many) counter objects in > the MIB module. See section 4.6.1.2 in RFC 4181 for some advice on this > issue thanks - fixing... > - IANA Considerations - IANA must allocate a branch under mib-2 for this > MIB module (marked xxx in the MIB module) thanks - yes, we had this on the "to do" list. will get this going. > > Regards, > > Dan cheers gregg -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- .:|:.:|:. | gregg schudel (ccie#9591) LISP technical mrkting engr cisco | mobile: +1 571 332 2222 email: gschudel@cisco.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- cisco corporate legal statement: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- From terry.manderson@icann.org Wed Sep 12 18:43:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5678F21F858F for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:43:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UEmMijytGpvo for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE13521F8585 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:43:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:43:30 -0700 From: Terry Manderson To: LISP mailing list list Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:43:29 -0700 Thread-Topic: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 Thread-Index: Ac15Gi3pzIoHIt+IhkysY3NEb1NzCwMWsAhIAvcPo+0= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3430381409_86656755" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC for draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 01:43:35 -0000 --B_3430381409_86656755 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I'm now comfortable with the WG review on this document. This closes the WGLC, IESG submission write-up will commence soon. Cheers Terry On 29/08/12 9:29 AM, "Terry Manderson" wrote: > > WG, > > I have not seen any review nor comments made of this document in this WGLC > by anyone in the WG. > > I am extending this last call by a further 14 days. > > The extended LC will end on Tuesday the 11th of September. Please WG, cast > your eyes over this document, it cannot progress without adequate review! > > Cheers > Terry > > > > On 13/08/12 4:09 PM, "Terry Manderson" wrote: > >> As requested in Vancouver, the authors of draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 have >> requested a work group last call. >> >> Here starts a 14 day last call for this document, the last call will end on >> Tuesday the 28th August, 2012. >> >> You will find its text here: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-mib-05 >> >> Please review this WG item and provide any last comments. >> >> Cheers >> Terry --B_3430381409_86656755 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIIQAQYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIP8jCCD+4CAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC Dc0wggcDMIIF66ADAgECAhAPz2lJUZsAlD35l4oJxf0FMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2Vy dC5jb20xITAfBgNVBAMTGERpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EtMTAeFw0xMjAzMjcwMDAw MDBaFw0xNTAzMjcxMjAwMDBaMIGsMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5p YTEXMBUGA1UEBxMOTWFyaW5hIGRlbCBSZXkxPDA6BgNVBAoTM0ludGVybmV0IENvcnBvcmF0 aW9uIGZvciBBc3NpZ25lZCBOYW1lcyBhbmQgTnVtYmVyczEXMBUGA1UECxMORE5TIE9wZXJh dGlvbnMxGDAWBgNVBAMTD1RlcnJ5IE1hbmRlcnNvbjCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBAKRhZ4W3U6MnfS2woYEFCIyN+g1MNILokbUKk+PTl5mmK3QtWQxTSOu2sdzN xHMy6p2RoT9BMGOamttFq2WswSru6/7JT1TflytGaPHfK5kMP/pI47hmcwUEm9Z169I5ar7z BTiEAQA06cGKtgJ8XiiLFUIHLVuRq3WGxjnFTHlAHXY6mdgDT/ntAnoEvvPVm4XqUnjJiZTS ojzyr1q2RqFvyXs2blOARumDqvLI33yLGcUuaEL+A+hgodzM/fL4kdoy964mXvmEerpm4d4f Y/JfbRUWxc0Eomu9nwGFNk6ijO41qk+OIboct2qeA+5PPclXJNNHYVfzT2dyWfGgxaMCAwEA AaOCA2gwggNkMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFBUAEisTmLKZB+0e36K+Vw0rZwLNMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSz wvR2YXpP9XjS9cknMX5g3LM2jTAkBgNVHREEHTAbgRl0ZXJyeS5tYW5kZXJzb25AaWNhbm4u b3JnMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwfQYD VR0fBHYwdDA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJl ZElEQ0EtMS5jcmwwOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmw0LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFz c3VyZWRJRENBLTEuY3JsMIIBxQYDVR0gBIIBvDCCAbgwggG0BgpghkgBhv1sBAECMIIBpDA6 BggrBgEFBQcCARYuaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vc3NsLWNwcy1yZXBvc2l0b3J5 Lmh0bTCCAWQGCCsGAQUFBwICMIIBVh6CAVIAQQBuAHkAIAB1AHMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABp AHMAIABDAGUAcgB0AGkAZgBpAGMAYQB0AGUAIABjAG8AbgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAdABlAHMAIABh AGMAYwBlAHAAdABhAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABEAGkAZwBpAEMAZQByAHQAIABD AFAALwBDAFAAUwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABSAGUAbAB5AGkAbgBnACAAUABhAHIAdAB5 ACAAQQBnAHIAZQBlAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgAIABsAGkAbQBpAHQAIABsAGkAYQBi AGkAbABpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQByAGUAIABpAG4AYwBvAHIAcABvAHIAYQB0AGUAZAAg AGgAZQByAGUAaQBuACAAYgB5ACAAcgBlAGYAZQByAGUAbgBjAGUALjB3BggrBgEFBQcBAQRr MGkwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTBBBggrBgEFBQcwAoY1 aHR0cDovL2NhY2VydHMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEQ0EtMS5jcnQw DAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAYpwxK/KvdhbyQqrKp2ylMQpNzqVH ofo4hPILTnp/o+UyYVn6daWSilaV+XNBzE5Rm/f7ms2iA1zBzOvGv55pLH0n6lgIRTeuAGzf KIsPCwPvYQkkMAPXHzh9A44m19hvigTgOPNyjzcOTiHqwwCJSDTEZx17CEkrzQPq1vfG1Lvk +AWjEtxCsGmsuCHHaZjwQ8SsGI7W5cA1Y4RTcQf6S9eIpSsOwXIYdDgWq9Uhi/amW7ryW06Y GH7BHaitqgmm32MZuid3UzJUU6+Ljx7uGA9Fe6k1uPEHhaXTAoobPSpPdOgGmnxUCRQu2OI7 +I8vHiSe7DC/LmxEDC5kB+lUTjCCBsIwggWqoAMCAQICEAoE3yF0XU0rjOozcgUAUOkwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcG A1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEkMCIGA1UEAxMbRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBS b290IENBMB4XDTA2MTExMDAwMDAwMFoXDTIxMTExMDAwMDAwMFowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEhMB8G A1UEAxMYRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQS0xMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEA6IItmfnKwkKVpYBzQHDSnlZUXKnE0kEGj8kz/E1FkVyBn+0snPgWWd+etSQV wpi5tHdJ3InECtqvy15r7a2wcTHrzzpADEZNk+yLejYIA6sMNP4YSYL+x8cxSIB8HqIPkg5Q ycaH6zY/2DDD/6b3+6LNb3Mj/qxWBZDwMiEWicZwiPkFl32jx0PdAug7Pe2xQaPtP77blUjE 7h6z8rwMK5nQxl0SQoHhg26Ccz8mSxSQrllmCsSNvtLOBq6thG9IhJtPQLnxTPKvmPv2zkBd XPao8S+v7Iki8msYZbHBc63X8djPHgp0XEK4aH631XcKJ1Z8D2KkPzIUYJX9BwSiCQIDAQAB o4IDbzCCA2swDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgGGMDsGA1UdJQQ0MDIGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEFBQcD AgYIKwYBBQUHAwMGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDCDCCAcYGA1UdIASCAb0wggG5MIIBtQYL YIZIAYb9bAEDAAQwggGkMDoGCCsGAQUFBwIBFi5odHRwOi8vd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9z c2wtY3BzLXJlcG9zaXRvcnkuaHRtMIIBZAYIKwYBBQUHAgIwggFWHoIBUgBBAG4AeQAgAHUA cwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGkAcwAgAEMAZQByAHQAaQBmAGkAYwBhAHQAZQAgAGMAbwBuAHMA dABpAHQAdQB0AGUAcwAgAGEAYwBjAGUAcAB0AGEAbgBjAGUAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAEQA aQBnAGkAQwBlAHIAdAAgAEMAUAAvAEMAUABTACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFIAZQBsAHkA aQBuAGcAIABQAGEAcgB0AHkAIABBAGcAcgBlAGUAbQBlAG4AdAAgAHcAaABpAGMAaAAgAGwA aQBtAGkAdAAgAGwAaQBhAGIAaQBsAGkAdAB5ACAAYQBuAGQAIABhAHIAZQAgAGkAbgBjAG8A cgBwAG8AcgBhAHQAZQBkACAAaABlAHIAZQBpAG4AIABiAHkAIAByAGUAZgBlAHIAZQBuAGMA ZQAuMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wfQYIKwYBBQUHAQEEcTBvMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRw Oi8vb2NzcC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20wRwYIKwYBBQUHMAKGO2h0dHA6Ly93d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQu Y29tL0NBQ2VydHMvRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290Q0EuY3J0MIGBBgNVHR8EejB4MDqg OKA2hjRodHRwOi8vY3JsMy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURSb290Q0Eu Y3JsMDqgOKA2hjRodHRwOi8vY3JsNC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1cmVkSURS b290Q0EuY3JsMB0GA1UdDgQWBBQVABIrE5iymQftHt+ivlcNK2cCzTAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBRF 66Kv9JLLgjEtUYunpyGd823IDzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAhGFOQR64dgQqtbbvj/JV hbldVv4KmObkvWWKfUAp0/yxXUX9OrgqWzNLJFzNubTkc61hXXatdDOKZtUjr0wfcm5F2XVA u6I7z41JL8BBsOIpo1E4Q1CZFKwzBjViiX13qVIH5WwgV7aBum+8s8KU7XYCgNl8zoWoHOzH Q0pLsVfPcs7f9SU8yyJP/Z9S0TfLCLs4PuDVPm95Ca1bfDGzdzXD5GP5aAqYB+dGOHeE0j6X vAqgqKwlT0RukeHSWq9r7zAcjaNEQrMQiyP61+Y1dDesz+urWB/JiCP/NtQH6jRqR+qdlWye KU9T7eMrlSBOKs+WYHr4LIDwlVLOKZaBYjGCAfwwggH4AgEBMHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FTATBgNVBAoTDERpZ2lDZXJ0IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbTEhMB8G A1UEAxMYRGlnaUNlcnQgQXNzdXJlZCBJRCBDQS0xAhAPz2lJUZsAlD35l4oJxf0FMAkGBSsO AwIaBQCgXTAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUVW2pQcPzWpIQy662xOOaeZYh3oAwGAYJKoZIhvcN AQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTIwOTEzMDE0MzI5WjANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQA8h+fASbNoFD4/MZP73SqGgg3OnpwUgk61jNNwP7RXBPsy1r6WzWZXNIXo R8HE9VeGg4ufK6L/7bx8cCkQzZ+sqpqEP5A9px0KNAzezAQ1tIawiCzj18zYZudeG6rxhtAG a9MTESNjkOsoLERQPOXMtQ8/l3xcO/bQwI2QKRD5+uT7J6HgWiZdRF7kdeuwAyRlAQc8WNLX Sx3XuQItF9MjiYA+wEuj/xpGpNcUTCrzIYccA9BMcE6LXsEAGs/qoS2itRWrTMv8uuAUrs/d ScOLyB5vV2MnXRdoWz1jboXHYpbEHwvRHEAqTAPfHACqh87mTDXiWVJ3iEvjKEt3ntzs --B_3430381409_86656755-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Sep 12 22:19:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124F121F84D8; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rdvz2eqKXyxi; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFD121F84B5; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:19:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120913051904.22168.38345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:19:04 -0700 Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 05:19:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations Author(s) : Lorand Jakab Albert Cabellos-Aparicio Florin Coras Jordi Domingo-Pascual Darrel Lewis Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt Pages : 24 Date : 2012-09-12 Abstract: This document discusses the different scenarios for the deployment of the new network elements introduced by the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-deployment There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ljakab@ac.upc.edu Wed Sep 12 22:24:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A43521E8042 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:24:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zEOWjtZg5Kmr for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A65921E8034 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.ac.upc.edu (gw.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.3]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8D5OLb7028942 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:24:21 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.110] (c-98-248-32-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.32.190]) by gw.ac.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FE66B0099 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:24:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <50516DFD.2000903@ac.upc.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:24:13 -0700 From: Lori Jakab Organization: UPC/BarcelonaTECH MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lisp@ietf.org" References: <20120913051904.22168.38345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120913051904.22168.38345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> OpenPGP: url=http://personals.ac.upc.edu/ljakab/lorand.jakab.pub.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 05:24:26 -0000 This version contains mainly editorial changes, improving clarity. Also, all references have been made informational, since this is an informational draft. -Lori On 09/12/12 22:19, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > 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 Network Element Deployment Considerations > Author(s) : Lorand Jakab > Albert Cabellos-Aparicio > Florin Coras > Jordi Domingo-Pascual > Darrel Lewis > Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt > Pages : 24 > Date : 2012-09-12 > > Abstract: > This document discusses the different scenarios for the deployment of > the new network elements introduced by the Locator/Identifier > Separation Protocol (LISP). > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-deployment > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Sep 12 22:31:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF11221E804A; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:31:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9mRMDtdb54Q2; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DB821E8034; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:31:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120913053100.25322.17290.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:31:00 -0700 Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-03.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 05:31:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : LISP-Security (LISP-SEC) Author(s) : Fabio Maino Vina Ermagan Albert Cabellos Damien Saucez Olivier Bonaventure Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-sec-03.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-09-12 Abstract: This memo specifies LISP-SEC, a set of security mechanisms that provide origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection to LISP's EID-to-RLOC mapping data conveyed via mapping lookup process. LISP-SEC also enables verification of authorization on EID- prefix claims in Map-Reply messages. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-lisp-sec-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From jmh@joelhalpern.com Thu Sep 13 08:08:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4EC21F8599 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WX9dZl5xdYkz for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7BA21F854E for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AB8A394C for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9201C9F41; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:08:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-52-249.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E81FF1C00FF; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5051F6F7.3020401@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:08:39 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lori Jakab References: <20120913051904.22168.38345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50516DFD.2000903@ac.upc.edu> In-Reply-To: <50516DFD.2000903@ac.upc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 15:08:50 -0000 Sorry, the references are going to have to be reorganized. Even for an Informational document (which this is and should be), there are normative references and informative references. The distinction is based on whether the reference needs to be understood in order to understand this document. For example, the base LISP spec (or possibly just the Intro document, or Intro + Architecture?) need to be understood by the reader for this to make any sense. As such, that (or those) are normative references. Yours, Joel On 9/13/2012 1:24 AM, Lori Jakab wrote: > This version contains mainly editorial changes, improving clarity. Also, > all references have been made informational, since this is an > informational draft. > > -Lori From ljakab@ac.upc.edu Thu Sep 13 08:15:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E5121F855F for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:15:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JdhRurGCswQa for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FDA21F8559 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.ac.upc.edu (gw.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.3]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8DFF5eY016141; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:15:05 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.110] (c-98-248-32-190.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.32.190]) by gw.ac.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E866B0099; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:15:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5051F871.3070405@ac.upc.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:14:57 -0700 From: Lori Jakab Organization: UPC/BarcelonaTECH MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <20120913051904.22168.38345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50516DFD.2000903@ac.upc.edu> <5051F6F7.3020401@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <5051F6F7.3020401@joelhalpern.com> OpenPGP: url=http://personals.ac.upc.edu/ljakab/lorand.jakab.pub.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 15:15:08 -0000 On 09/13/12 08:08, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Sorry, the references are going to have to be reorganized. > Even for an Informational document (which this is and should be), > there are normative references and informative references. > > The distinction is based on whether the reference needs to be > understood in order to understand this document. For example, the > base LISP spec (or possibly just the Intro document, or Intro + > Architecture?) need to be understood by the reader for this to make > any sense. As such, that (or those) are normative references. Ok, will do that. Thanks Joel! -Lori > > Yours, > Joel > > On 9/13/2012 1:24 AM, Lori Jakab wrote: >> This version contains mainly editorial changes, improving clarity. Also, >> all references have been made informational, since this is an >> informational draft. >> >> -Lori From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Sep 13 08:51:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE6B21F861A for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:51:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1O6ohYG7fON for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168A621F860E for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D5F6B18C0AB; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:51:41 -0400 (EDT) To: lisp@ietf.org Message-Id: <20120913155141.D5F6B18C0AB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:51:41 -0400 (EDT) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 15:51:54 -0000 > From: "Joel M. Halpern" > the base LISP spec (or possibly just the Intro document, or Intro + > Architecture?) I can't imagine any circumstances in which the 'Architectural Perspectives' document would _have_ to be read to understand any other LISP document. Yes, reading it will help improve people's understanding of just about anything to do with LISP, but it's really mostly a collection of high-altitude architectural observations about / analyses of LISP. So, I would list it as an informative reference. BTW: Note that it's deliberately not called the 'Architecture of LISP' because a lot (most?) of what would normally be in an architecture document (i.e. what the major sub-systems are, and how they interact) is actually in the 'Intro' document. The 'Architectural Perspectives' document really is an ancillary document, albeit at an architectural level. Noel From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Sep 14 08:53:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D8A21F84F8 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oIqZUmcBi+KS for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E94621F84DD for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D3B5585C9 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7FF1BD45FF for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-52-249.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81F611BD45E5 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <505352D9.7010605@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:52:57 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lisp@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040105010909080900010100" Subject: [lisp] Fwd: Document status X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Sep 2012 15:53:17 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040105010909080900010100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit These are the documents we reference in the approved LISP docs. Yours, Joel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Document status Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:08:30 +0200 From: Ole Trĝan To: ipv6@ietf.org 6man all, fyi: the chairs have just requested the IESG to publish: draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04 draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06 document status of all our working group documents are available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6man/ ... Regards, Ole & Bob --------------040105010909080900010100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message Part" -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------040105010909080900010100-- From fmaino@cisco.com Thu Sep 20 07:01:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1905821F8779; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CdTGOXVA93Cy; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D4421F84AF; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:01:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5522; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348149677; x=1349359277; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=cQVGWZrunUyZAUuaIlzLkmGT4semVtMeiCvEGJjJ5sw=; b=VwfoB/InqsutsWtGjBegcSl6YBHMRI45oMsY0E4P1RkXiazVLm/fiN1d NpGlAdAZDAstJa/Ss9P4EEBh9mTqWgLxs1onqjvIJpttxLqg7IIVUZHxS gCLH+twiBq4fOBYj29TqE+PGcgkgP1VN1CDyUOgkE7t1LoA5cYnAUpGcU A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAP8gW1CrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFhgqFX7EsgQiCIAEBAQQSARBUAQEMBBwDAQIKFgsCAgkDAgECATsCCBMBBQIBAQUZh2AMmXWNG5JsixyDIoINgRIDiFaNDoEUjSSBaYMG X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,453,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="56321560" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2012 14:01:17 +0000 Received: from fmaino-mac-2.local ([10.21.72.45]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8KE1G3E005558; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:01:16 GMT Message-ID: <505B21AB.3030108@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:01:15 -0700 From: Fabio Maino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nvo3@ietf.org References: <20120920054150.9327.68370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120920054150.9327.68370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120920054150.9327.68370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030701010009010404010409" Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: [lisp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Sep 2012 14:01:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030701010009010404010409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the draft on LISP Control Plane for NVO3 that we'll present later today at the NVO3 interim. Please use this thread to send comments. Thanks, Fabio -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:41:50 -0700 From: To: CC: , , A new version of I-D, draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Fabio Maino and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp Revision: 01 Title: LISP Control Plane for Network Virtualization Overlays Creation date: 2012-09-19 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 19 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01 Abstract: The purpose of this draft is to analyze the mapping between the Network Virtualization over L3 (NVO3) requirements and the capabilities of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control plane. This information is provided as input to the NVO3 analysis of the suitability of existing IETF protocols to the NVO3 requirements. The IETF Secretariat --------------030701010009010404010409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the draft on LISP Control Plane for NVO3 that we'll present later today at the NVO3 interim.

Please use this thread to send comments.

Thanks,
Fabio


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:41:50 -0700
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
To: <fmaino@cisco.com>
CC: <michsmit@insiemenetworks.com>, <dino@cisco.com>, <vermagan@cisco.com> 


A new version of I-D, draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Fabio Maino and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp
Revision:	 01
Title:		 LISP Control Plane for Network Virtualization Overlays
Creation date:	 2012-09-19
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 19
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01

Abstract:
   The purpose of this draft is to analyze the mapping between the
   Network Virtualization over L3 (NVO3) requirements and the
   capabilities of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control
   plane.  This information is provided as input to the NVO3 analysis of
   the suitability of existing IETF protocols to the NVO3 requirements.


                                                                                  


The IETF Secretariat



--------------030701010009010404010409-- From dino@cisco.com Thu Sep 20 11:23:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A85B21F84F9; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IbfOG4kPbT6Q; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01CF21F84B6; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9106; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348165392; x=1349374992; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=pAzjIN+QUqc8xq12SbAPXJvUsVKrFOBXohcw8Afte/U=; b=E8ctidn2azFz/JykV484Ns8r84ZNDxEQ9K3LctkAY1JRuY5lRoAL9ywa h/VOeNAdguOr9t6XeWUyTFQxT/xN+ARw46rQoPZoiEPmJ/aViS5fYvvsM QGGJipUQliQ997ZMUuWtKoAj6oIE8hx/WXqZzlRnXdwfLFEY87y8NFvia E=; X-Files: smime.p7s : 2585 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,455,1344211200"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="56351137" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2012 18:23:12 +0000 Received: from [10.21.76.26] ([10.21.76.26]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8KIN9jn029369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:23:11 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7C29F93-3855-4091-A60C-4C1FE9878E3B"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:23:13 -0700 Message-Id: <3CE81260-328C-49C2-ADBA-32BB8AC8BEE1@cisco.com> References: <20120920054150.9327.68370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <505B21AB.3030108@cisco.com> To: "Reith, Lothar" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1486) Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Sep 2012 18:23:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D7C29F93-3855-4091-A60C-4C1FE9878E3B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I would suggest using the word VPN rather than tenant. Because a = customer, aka as a tenant, could be part of more than one VPN. And in service provider networks, these terms and definitions are well = known and accepted. Dino On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Reith, Lothar" = wrote: > Hi Fabio, Dear all > =20 > I have a couple of observations: > t > 1. The quality of the contribution appears to be excellent, = however there is one thing: the text appears to be kind of loose = regarding what the LISP Instance ID identifies. While it is not wrong to = state that the LISP Instance ID identifies the tenant, such wording is = misleading. The LISP Instance ID does not directly identify the tenant. = I suggest to more correctly state, that the LISP instance ID identifies = a virtual network (this occurs in multiple places throughout the = document). Of course there will be somewhere some table mapping the = virtual network to a virtual data center, and the virtual data center to = a tenant, with whom the virtual datacenter and therefore the virtual = network belongs. > 2. In that context, I would recommend to the authors of the NVO3 = framework document to review the definition of tenant. Is a tenant = really a =93customer=94, or rather a subscriber of a business service, = that is authorized by a customer? > The key question is if adding a =93virtual network=94 can be subject = to a separate subscription (where e.g. different SLAs, pricing, legal = conditions etc may apply) or if adding a virtual network can only be = done by changing the subscription to a virtual data center service = (which has uniform SLAs, pricing, legal conditions etc). According to = the framework, the latter appears to apply. > 3. And while we are at it: the claim in = draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt that = draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-03.txt has defined key terms such as DC is = correct, however, it is not the term DC that is used, but the term =93data= center network=94. And unfortunately, the term data center network is = not defined. For example, I am not sure, if the term =93data center = network=94 refers to > a. the underlay network inside the boundaries of a single DC, = including its capability to create virtual data centers comprising = multiple VNs, where each VN is confined to the boundary of one DC > b. the underlay network potentially spanning the boundaries of = multiple DC, including their capability to create virtual data centers = spanning multiple DC, and thus VNs spanning multiple DC. > c. Something else > =20 > It should be noted that the definition of the term =93virtual data = center=94 currently does not specify, if it is confined to one DC or may = span multiple DC. > =20 > =20 > Best Regards, Lothar > =20 > Detecon International GmbH (Deutsche Telekom group) > =20 > =20 > =20 > =20 > Von: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag = von Fabio Maino > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. September 2012 16:01 > An: nvo3@ietf.org > Cc: lisp@ietf.org > Betreff: [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for = draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt > =20 > This is the draft on LISP Control Plane for NVO3 that we'll present = later today at the NVO3 interim. >=20 > Please use this thread to send comments.=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Fabio >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: > New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt > Date: > Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:41:50 -0700 > From: > > To: > > CC: > , , > =20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Fabio Maino and posted to the > IETF repository. > =20 > Filename: draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp > Revision: 01 > Title: LISP Control Plane for Network Virtualization = Overlays > Creation date: 2012-09-19 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 19 > URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt > Status: = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01 > Diff: = http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01 > =20 > Abstract: > The purpose of this draft is to analyze the mapping between the > Network Virtualization over L3 (NVO3) requirements and the > capabilities of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control > plane. This information is provided as input to the NVO3 analysis = of > the suitability of existing IETF protocols to the NVO3 = requirements. > =20 > =20 > = =20 > =20 > =20 > The IETF Secretariat > =20 > =20 >=20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 --Apple-Mail=_D7C29F93-3855-4091-A60C-4C1FE9878E3B Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIFUDCCBUww ggQ0oAMCAQICEC1TBxluVeE64egyuL9kyAswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMjA0MjUwMDAwMDBaFw0x MzA0MjUyMzU5NTlaMIIBDzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRcwFQYDVQQDFA5EaW5vIEZhcmluYWNjaTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYOZGlub0BjaXNjby5j b20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC9C2Rwk3CLn526Rfiko9M7MSu3hBqq CIS0awvIVS8L03TFgzWm6JjkWAcus5ZR15+GMI3zvtVWbFVl/7lk8ZX2p7uySe5uXpAYSICeVlx/ sw5YsM5+AeCa1DjpzHoVGsFJA3LS/sugZ14TnwhsKxzvcqoPIJNTmQE6jAvUkoA1XV+OyMKM41Pd HiWMTf1dm1BdN8F/fcNVE6ttv1IQnTb7j8EI9stRLuY7otrJljUHNYmzAMfYpWwDk6JkGyYK6fwp oTR5Ibj0DRZsUYE+YIwbnW6uwTLWyXLod5sGOqdEMlk3qD7vQvCP30F+XsDRb0ii2dtUzMqKY1Ul r6fik/EpAgMBAAGjgdIwgc8wCQYDVR0TBAIwADBEBgNVHSAEPTA7MDkGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMCow KAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgWgMB0G A1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAjBQBgNVHR8ESTBHMEWgQ6BBhj9odHRwOi8vaW5k YzFkaWdpdGFsaWQtZzMtY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9JbmRDMURpZ2l0YWxJRC1HMy5jcmwwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAAoX+IDg7qDqyr5O1zZX82v3TevLknKVcuJ1cOsZadb23w7B1g2fD3Ou 6j+AoLSj83Vqdir4BSapmv4c7MuVfynKcazZhSGdIT/yXV4DG75/I72vP4aLVgNlvV5bh8RFtOpI Ce54TIFQOnTXIhxS8Jp4w0mGVrTMm6RlFUYZCbVNR09k/fx5SjIJhwRKtmRd1jicbknRC1vbKj5v ugx8fjwwxtS/Im3V9ocnYCMqvH69dUWq9kDcg67dskUdmm1Tqzn9QNdVDkRgwweYobo1VInSijkC /Shj6NLAMfyWdeFRIEyiSfCEBUHCwnU1Zh39PtKjO4edRGcZzPt7401CNpExggSLMIIEhwIBATCB 8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJp U2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcw NQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhAt UwcZblXhOuHoMri/ZMgLMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEw HAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDkyMDE4MjMxM1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFKSXXBSme58MVQJm 8WlD70FdsoPnMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMO VmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsT MlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYD VQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEC1TBxluVeE64egyuL9kyAswggEFBgsqhkiG9w0B CRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhAtUwcZblXhOuHoMri/ZMgLMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBACcFJy/vPbe7Wlrc/iNB g7iDi6lqeRTLIQY5Iwmzkp1hD3LgW1PWfNuoDs5bJql6NvKq0iglwLsqOIno2O1gTi3/96jf/a0w xeRZ8ab4HrnHnpR1TTTsyPBwKh2K1kYnzE6uQI87KzsgSWXYaKgqKKELeyspH3mTg4cRaDGcrJDX zYaHMEs12f3cSRHEOIFzGUS7NHASH4+DCtPSoImgzMFU+8/nvZuseKWMDwIhkmRYioKfZyXxzunQ yeeBsetHP/yPGGp217COV2dFOe0U9qr9iR1W2kfer6Tf10C1GssCoakMOmAdpIgQ7rP6EDDY9KIx +N9Wgr8PVXhF8/bNPtoAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_D7C29F93-3855-4091-A60C-4C1FE9878E3B-- From Lothar.Reith@detecon.com Thu Sep 20 12:36:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33E521F84D7; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TokbbFJugidN; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dtc035.detecon.net (dtc035.detecon.net [194.25.60.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F0C21F84C8; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown (HELO dc311v.detecon.com) ([172.16.6.74]) by relay.dtc035.detecon.net with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2012 21:36:02 +0200 Received: from DC302.detecon.com ([fe80::1459:5e19:9df7:1c29]) by dc311v.detecon.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:36:02 +0200 From: "Reith, Lothar" To: Dino Farinacci Thread-Topic: [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHNlzhr4UWQCdQ1LkeIGlmS085nw5eTbWlg///8nICAADDWsA== Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:36:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20120920054150.9327.68370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <505B21AB.3030108@cisco.com> <3CE81260-328C-49C2-ADBA-32BB8AC8BEE1@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3CE81260-328C-49C2-ADBA-32BB8AC8BEE1@cisco.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [194.25.57.27] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:25:20 -0700 Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Sep 2012 19:36:06 -0000 Dino, No, the framework document calls it virtual network, and this term appears = to be reasonably well accepted and understood across networking centric and= compute centric communities. One could argue however about whether the definition of "virtual network" i= n the NVO3-framework document can be improved. I believe yes.=20 Lothar -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dino Farinacci [mailto:dino@cisco.com]=20 Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. September 2012 20:23 An: Reith, Lothar Cc: Fabio Maino; nvo3@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp= -cp-01.txt I would suggest using the word VPN rather than tenant. Because a customer, = aka as a tenant, could be part of more than one VPN. And in service provider networks, these terms and definitions are well know= n and accepted. Dino On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:18 AM, "Reith, Lothar" wr= ote: > Hi Fabio, Dear all > =20 > I have a couple of observations: > t > 1. The quality of the contribution appears to be excellent, however t= here is one thing: the text appears to be kind of loose regarding what the = LISP Instance ID identifies. While it is not wrong to state that the LISP I= nstance ID identifies the tenant, such wording is misleading. The LISP Inst= ance ID does not directly identify the tenant. I suggest to more correctly = state, that the LISP instance ID identifies a virtual network (this occurs = in multiple places throughout the document). Of course there will be somewh= ere some table mapping the virtual network to a virtual data center, and th= e virtual data center to a tenant, with whom the virtual datacenter and the= refore the virtual network belongs. > 2. In that context, I would recommend to the authors of the NVO3 fram= ework document to review the definition of tenant. Is a tenant really a "cu= stomer", or rather a subscriber of a business service, that is authorized b= y a customer? > The key question is if adding a "virtual network" can be subject to a se= parate subscription (where e.g. different SLAs, pricing, legal conditions e= tc may apply) or if adding a virtual network can only be done by changing t= he subscription to a virtual data center service (which has uniform SLAs, p= ricing, legal conditions etc). According to the framework, the latter appea= rs to apply. > 3. And while we are at it: the claim in draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.t= xt that draft-lasserre-nvo3-framework-03.txt has defined key terms such as = DC is correct, however, it is not the term DC that is used, but the term "d= ata center network". And unfortunately, the term data center network is not= defined. For example, I am not sure, if the term "data center network" ref= ers to > a. the underlay network inside the boundaries of a single DC, includi= ng its capability to create virtual data centers comprising multiple VNs, w= here each VN is confined to the boundary of one DC > b. the underlay network potentially spanning the boundaries of multipl= e DC, including their capability to create virtual data centers spanning mu= ltiple DC, and thus VNs spanning multiple DC. > c. Something else > =20 > It should be noted that the definition of the term "virtual data center" = currently does not specify, if it is confined to one DC or may span multipl= e DC. > =20 > =20 > Best Regards, Lothar > =20 > Detecon International GmbH (Deutsche Telekom group) > =20 > =20 > =20 > =20 > Von: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von = Fabio Maino > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. September 2012 16:01 > An: nvo3@ietf.org > Cc: lisp@ietf.org > Betreff: [nvo3] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-c= p-01.txt > =20 > This is the draft on LISP Control Plane for NVO3 that we'll present later= today at the NVO3 interim. >=20 > Please use this thread to send comments.=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Fabio >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: > New Version Notification for draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt > Date: > Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:41:50 -0700 > From: > > To: > > CC: > , , > =20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Fabio Maino and posted to the > IETF repository. > =20 > Filename: draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp > Revision: 01 > Title: LISP Control Plane for Network Virtualization Overlays > Creation date: 2012-09-19 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 19 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maino-nvo3-lis= p-cp-01.txt > Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maino-nvo3-lisp-cp-01 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-maino-nvo3-lisp= -cp-01 > =20 > Abstract: > The purpose of this draft is to analyze the mapping between the > Network Virtualization over L3 (NVO3) requirements and the > capabilities of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control > plane. This information is provided as input to the NVO3 analysis of > the suitability of existing IETF protocols to the NVO3 requirements. > =20 > =20 > = =20 > =20 > =20 > The IETF Secretariat > =20 > =20 >=20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3