From nobody Mon Aug 3 14:56:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0612C1B3189 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:55:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gVpxPBTfLhaf for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74AD81B3190 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:55:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1407; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438638941; x=1439848541; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=yllbbkJVPhQrocr6SBL412+RobYCKSrUEF/16cBIWSM=; b=B3XkBV96sGFbjB7JiAWg332YHRenveag0JRzcI/kDlcnMIuK0v8V8D8Y fFKtXHRNRI/VaaQRzih5OAtWh3KYJTvQtd4egPQCK4xbSAPOFVRmbUH8n pZXxc/AfTBBIanhD/WxyFaIGw6j3Ib6KGEVSOZcNIsLZV7KqqoJ1oxxj2 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AbAwAf4r9V/49dJa1bGQEBAYJ+VGkGvE0JggSFeQKBNzgUAQEBAQEBAX8LhCQBAQEDOj0CEAIBCDYQMhsBBgMCBA4FiC4Nyy4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXi0+FCAeELAWMTYgsAYR6h1GBR0aDWpNhJoN9bwGBR4EEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,604,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="174918124" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2015 21:55:40 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t73LtexS012099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:55:40 GMT Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:55:39 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (173.37.183.76) by xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:55:39 -0500 Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.62]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:55:37 -0500 From: "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" To: "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHQuEdVAYItv8m/UU2srUxdm7hYXp363CWA Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:55:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150706235548.32009.28633.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150706235548.32009.28633.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1C5C5A525D8123418353577A9A8FA13A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ermagan-lisp-yang@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [lisp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:55:52 -0000 Dear WG, Please find below a new version of the LISP YANG model draft. The main changes in this revision include removing the feature/if-feature references for various LISP device types, and breaking the model into smaller modules for each LISP role. Looking forward to comments from the WG on the models. Regards, Vina On 7/6/15 4:55 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt >has been successfully submitted by Vina Ermagan and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-ermagan-lisp-yang >Revision: 01 >Title: LISP Configuration YANG Model >Document date: 2015-07-06 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 80 >URL: =20 >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt >Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang/ >Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01 >Diff: =20 >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01 > >Abstract: > This document describes a YANG data model to use with the Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP). > > =20 > =20 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat > From nobody Sun Aug 9 14:57:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2147B1A6F29 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 14:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y74SxrRdaIB0 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA571A6F20 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so2005591wic.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version; bh=KfY0fOBJ/fWxxxOptMFr+wOPOf7cg4VoEfod6WURGKM=; b=K1G/yoeDZB7aetBdRmDu1kiwQf2gm8eT9ZP9d5zYbX/zTRuWr6M6CfyKQ9tK/TLxDz x4D9cqo3Z3k7dyTDQqfRIJZFe0Kp0utxVqINjdLoQHpXwuZbqYodLh1M1uWf7nFE/liT vdyjzLPmYf+gyH6PZaSDxBjGFY5uo/DL5DkgolUAIbsBhCProJBpMZutuwc/IvMaScs7 IxfNOVY66hCKj0ebnhl93Lre29mwA/5c08NWHweb6eDJ70DTWIQlPDdBbsxm79cpHxzo Eaq8hKaaL5KVMMHEwQXLLu5lLazqDRpWnvqFXcog0ZYf9bHT65YMxUgCQruXscu5DyXM v+jA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7aPxK6NxmyvqUgnEEOuOZTyDsBtxs9Ri9Y21Hm5MX3XMeu6GHtzg8R8sqFM8699tm0FYy X-Received: by 10.180.107.34 with SMTP id gz2mr18915379wib.77.1439157432017; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.162.14.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dz4sm10514568wib.17.2015.08.09.14.57.10 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 14:57:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_14DAF420-CC13-493A-8472-C2B7D646D9C2" Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 23:57:09 +0200 Message-Id: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:57:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_14DAF420-CC13-493A-8472-C2B7D646D9C2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi All, The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01 = ]=20 asked for WG adoption. This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption. The call ends on August 24th 2015. Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of approval = or disapproval. Recall that: - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to=20 modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus that = the content is solid. =20 Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want = to see changes to its content. - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your = reasons why,=20 and explain what it would take to address your concerns. - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can=20 begin a dialog about how best to address them. =20 = =20 Luigi and Joel= --Apple-Mail=_14DAF420-CC13-493A-8472-C2B7D646D9C2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Hi All,

The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01]&nbs= p;
asked for WG adoption.

This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption.
The call ends on  August 24th 2015.

Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements = of approval or disapproval.

Recall that:

- This is not WG Last = Call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected = to 
  modify the document=E2=80=99s = content until there is WG consensus that the content is solid. =  
  Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t = oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.

- If you have objections = to adoption of the document, please state your reasons = why, 
  and explain what it would take to = address your concerns.

- If you have issues with the content, by all means raise = those issues and we can 
  begin a dialog = about how best to address them.
      =                 
                =                     =                     =                     =                     =         
Luigi and = Joel
= --Apple-Mail=_14DAF420-CC13-493A-8472-C2B7D646D9C2-- From nobody Sun Aug 9 15:01:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BF51A6FEF for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pKOdi3d7_qjC for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10E6B1A6FEE for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so114337132wij.0 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=7h26p6Q+TocxZvk3s6PBEI2qg4SFsT5E8+gBhHQdxu0=; b=HIg3++yLVKASSli7YG0sD26XKLpapzOxWdqZb/63E0qa6iljnHK1dgryVaYG5RAHKp 8tjwrrjpHQxtXo678Hxt9gDhtZiVacZfShnWDLOfVVq5V/B4b4AjKA7Tj48ujXA/wFSO 0zb70VViJo1NRbnONWix3qYekLJtwmBJWTywsww15Vew1oYKiiBVK9Nwutebr5jXQ9Bq 3aTwO8IstNniCjJ13WkuczNqSvG+AHzxC/gCko9FWMcgQI3BnVzIBbwGL/E7Rhtf2Czg 8qCCjCRG7rcgOsjc3osm6tC/vITrnv7Aw0rHClaaUhEWNJ05O0afbsY7Knix5KKTdwx4 CwZg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl2lQlYtgUmBMmdppsrhFBXamCspZO41no3jL/g019aYbnFmeC0jz798WYpGJRMzh5CJ6bu X-Received: by 10.180.9.162 with SMTP id a2mr17267607wib.95.1439157684665; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.162.14.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lq9sm26206703wjb.35.2015.08.09.15.01.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:01:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:01:22 +0200 Message-Id: To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] Rechartering Discussion Follow-up X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:01:28 -0000 Hi All, during the last meeting and on the mailing list there has been nice = discussion on possible work that the WG can do. It is time to resume the discussion. Hereafter you can find the minutes = of the=20 rechartering discussion that happened in Prague (complete minutes will = be uploaded=20 by the end of the week). It looks like there are three main points that needs to be tackled, = namely: - Move to Standard Track:=20 By dropping the Internet Scalability aspect and focusing on LISP=20= as an overlay technology it would be possible to move the work=20= out of experimental status to Standard Track. - LISP Overlay Model:=20 The LCAF potentially allows to define mappings between any = existing=20 namespace, but the LISP header allows only IPv4 over IPv6 and viceversa.=20 - LISP Use Cases: For lack of better wording =E2=80=9Cuse case=E2=80=9D = here stands for=20 the aspects of the LISP technology the WG should focus on (knowing that would be impossible to cover everything) For these three aspects we will open three different threads on the = mailing list. So please, unless you have very general remarks, reply in the specific = threads expressing you opinion and helping us (the chairs) summarize the = discussion in a new charter. Joel & Luigi = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------- Rechartering Minutes: [Darrel Lewis]: asks to not tight the different protocol details and the = core (e.g., mapping system, NAT traversal=E2=80=A6) to a particular use = case. [Terry Manderson]: proposes to remove the IAB requirement about = scalability of routing table problem to concentrate on the core protocol = and think about the critical use cases that the WG want to work on. [Joel Halpern/Dino Farinacci/Albert Cabellos] agree with Terry. [Ed Lopez] says problem can be separated: the case of LISP as = end-system, and the one in intermediate system. [Darrel Lewis] makes the distinction between immediate use cases and = exploratory use cases. [Michael Menth] says it is important to have deployment to understand = what could be the use case. [Sharon Barkai] says that what is important is the notion of overlay and = that the group should propose a clear interface for =E2=80=9Cmap = assisted overlays=E2=80=9D. Opening the schema to different solutions = and underlays. [Larry Kreeger]: proposes to get more with NVO3. [Joel Halpern]: asks attendees to refine categories and send to the = list. From nobody Sun Aug 9 15:02:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC31E1A6FEE for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:02:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZoUQv3DTtac1 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 649971A6FEF for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so114361394wij.0 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=Ubj4/goZGvxWY8ClH9MRDXGlSBL1S6fkR27R22WWqlE=; b=K/6Z9tx4pLt2TqphbTYWtAuc1wehK0TsFDc0TQ+cBYWDxYDEeutTyBfsCbMPlmtaOe wDcwHHiGzqUaIVMYVncH6Ng+YrlWfOgAZWH7T6XZPxKF/KpEArZTGgoRWitLwyWcXgT3 VjyIGhVmN96fz9B9MKKij+gniCGMZ06tqjebGG3Oizu1ZlSkEq8A4vjGE1bwHLXuWFyV Z8H3HKBPRvWvHLW9TKBSnZHAkLChwrsSn1pjle/27xgM0VhJRnZbQMsXe6OFqmX6ZjsE Ic8G48OEAPbCC/+LQ//51jKX3kBwxcdk8mprT6PS4WyL6etQ2G1nwRbtGkmo+ZS2F+hY KsEw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnrBB/SRstLapoVFqMRvNGX/jvWw8EqJ0sHBo4oBDtou3LU38hMdFtK06FaqbUQ2wdIppT8 X-Received: by 10.180.9.162 with SMTP id a2mr17275014wib.95.1439157775079; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.162.14.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lk16sm10561140wic.6.2015.08.09.15.02.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:02:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:02:53 +0200 Message-Id: To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:02:57 -0000 Hi, As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time for = the WG=20 to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on = the core protocol technology.=20 LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by = experimental work=20 documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so = far.=20 That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefits=20= in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability = aspects, focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work on standard track.=20 If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to = re-work=20 the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to = scalability, and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so = far. Would be the WG in favour of such direction? Joel & Luigi= From nobody Sun Aug 9 15:05:36 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DE01A8745 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jM90XLGyD-wR for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B1471A870C for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so2150569wic.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:05:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version; bh=y35v8IIy3haObQSyLR9B8MmJmUWQ55XY8uldZO2/z7o=; b=XguBtPMNhbZrTUhWQqONXc5NcHZ4tbkoWibiTy8ZT8id2kkb13psOpfURUqWvjWiMX CnEw+dCtCoET7rlXBWxKyY4pTffqlt2HzFMp8udfyyQg8V6oZtfM+9D3GY2VN5gZoeMK oLDHN5tZyNYar1ZquPbFhtdtKv7vqr512xEPtXV4lBnrs4s3y6MoQ7/2sn5I9LeafF+m FQ+d9AgCDLEXI8Yx0LLnblBU/u4bulJSW065MYOckxjMBhaFFmiP7ZSr4LXJ7dDw4icN D049EM6Sl473NvkIXie+TN/RzJWewBtjg1cdP8km9ypci5GqbFl2z4tPb7iKN3MpHJHV YTSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDsS/zYFXUYT7bae7JoXvzd241kM0RKC+7OD4cegc4jT1QSp56hKtJobfaqgiT4K+P1yJ1 X-Received: by 10.194.109.36 with SMTP id hp4mr40594345wjb.4.1439157931807; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.162.14.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e8sm6855230wiz.0.2015.08.09.15.05.30 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:05:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:05:29 +0200 Message-Id: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:05:34 -0000 Hi, LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where=20 by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped=20 on each other. However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =E2=80=9Cmap assisted = overlays=E2=80=9D more work is needed. In this context the WG should also decide whether just an = extended/enhanced data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger = and=20 allow as well to support multiple headers type? Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG=20 (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay = model in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane = already allows? And what should be the scope? Joel & Luigi =20= From nobody Sun Aug 9 15:07:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CD71A87C2 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:07:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pn9qwmga0SZG for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04EBE1A8745 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so114716997wic.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version; bh=8mHVD++ONhgL0pulEZZK1Sv5YzIz3O7tT+M/MfJXYdY=; b=iKPuiQA69Ybu/ntZ9vnXdpV6FQma1Gj/rRpG1V5NO/BQoQXfMYJsBxwj33AV/xLxdi dhMLKNDacFSWrDM28v4L5iLhqUl/+K+u5CzC5kDo9WY4sN0sjMUb2JVfVASE8kC0A6B2 xMtWh8ZXetirbR4hiDIip3hN532gPYZfhUoWU0IieGipAPWufIZpeqVq4yehxMX4cVZK zI2u/YrHgOXSIPHWFrzeC0wTn76r6roPlhC/cXK+3lavrS4nE8lt/srtQSNRPMK2s752 lJtIjJAUuW274aJtFXX6GDK5RQWBZx/X6sX2wHAjtMP8QbV2Ici/YUK3o8GQgR2kkjT7 HGsw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksPXY1kqt4Ti2q62is8yq4ezMnexBKOSxsfdmPVf4QuuznydWb+TNS33adqCJKO2aJScvs X-Received: by 10.194.62.211 with SMTP id a19mr36306057wjs.126.1439158027654; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.162.14.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gw7sm10526199wib.15.2015.08.09.15.07.06 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0EBD0CE6-CE0D-4BC8-858C-94686A590C4A" Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:07:05 +0200 Message-Id: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:07:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0EBD0CE6-CE0D-4BC8-858C-94686A590C4A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, As previously said, "use case=E2=80=9D might not be the best term, and=20= as Darrel Lewis suggested during the meeting in Prague, the WG should be careful not to create tight constraints by=20 binding the protocol to narrow use cases. Yet, it is always good to have an idea of where the technology we are designing will be used. This will as well may help in taking some = decisions=20 along the way. There is no predefined suggestion, but a good starting point for = discussion is the list provided by Fabio Maino in his mail: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg05996.html = - LISP VPN (including integration with IPsec) - NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including support for VM = mobility) - SDN/NFV (including support for service chaining) - IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure for IoT applications) - Mobile Node (LISP-MN mobility) Please send your feedback to which area should have priority. Joel & Luigi= --Apple-Mail=_0EBD0CE6-CE0D-4BC8-858C-94686A590C4A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi,

As = previously said, "use case=E2=80=9D might not be the best term, = and 
as Darrel Lewis suggested during the = meeting in Prague,
the WG should be careful not to = create tight constraints by 
binding the = protocol to narrow use cases.

Yet, it is always good to have an idea = of where the technology we are
designing will be = used. This will as well may help in taking some = decisions 
along the way.

There is no predefined = suggestion, but a good starting point for discussion
is the list provided by Fabio Maino in his mail:
 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg05996.html=


- LISP VPN (including integration with = IPsec)
- NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including = support for VM mobility)
- SDN/NFV (including support for = service chaining)
- IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure = for IoT applications)
- Mobile Node  (LISP-MN = mobility)

Please send your feedback to which area = should have priority.

Joel & Luigi= --Apple-Mail=_0EBD0CE6-CE0D-4BC8-858C-94686A590C4A-- From nobody Sun Aug 9 15:47:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733391B29C9 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:47:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98AYbZRSwygA for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81F61AD358 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so92395607pab.0 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:47:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9hg6OV8RENhiO1vlJ0UxT73JfJ7RZuUlBnl8q1Y3M7w=; b=bteM2HkRjMJfnEI5zlYhsNHbxtjcVQ3f3pKTvSO8l5djQyvXZ6uRuHMVz3upmHTE9x DW8oBOONgmGY5P7us9PZmvVbGrYLjTgoaKYmcGOa1BuPefYwzLJJLVD4uKVh5IdL4fhw 1KcEGqaXnyOv/0omEjO27n/+2ZztCN0yn3g4LyumHkVyMZI1xiohnMr7YkaHwrL9nxWA kO4J51d49gGjOXKShlyjeevXkA77E6iFa8WA2qVXnVKHA110WZmEpo+e3KLsd0c5hEok UvsuxOzRqJ9ESJvt7f7892QQXEnrHVc6DpRRL+1iypVhGnxuVvjNINNTaLr1lVfdng91 HigQ== X-Received: by 10.68.227.8 with SMTP id rw8mr38700883pbc.74.1439160467393; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.116.7.238] ([166.170.37.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m2sm17593520pdp.4.2015.08.09.15.47.45 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-67A9FD65-7089-4CFF-AF54-530682D2FA76 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: farinacci@gmail.com X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143) In-Reply-To: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:47:44 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3C91A6BD-F357-46B8-BB7F-435678BA6F37@gmail.com> References: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:47:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail-67A9FD65-7089-4CFF-AF54-530682D2FA76 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approve. Dino > On Aug 9, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01]=20 > asked for WG adoption. >=20 > This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption. > The call ends on August 24th 2015. >=20 > Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of approval or= disapproval. >=20 > Recall that: >=20 > - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is expec= ted to=20 > modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus that t= he content is solid. =20 > Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want to= see changes to its content. >=20 > - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your re= asons why,=20 > and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues and= we can=20 > begin a dialog about how best to address them. > =20 > = =20 > Luigi and Joel > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail-67A9FD65-7089-4CFF-AF54-530682D2FA76 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Approve.

Dino

On Aug 9, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:

=
Hi All,

The authors of the docu= ment draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt
[https://tools.ietf.org/= html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01] 
asked for WG= adoption.

This message begins the two weeks ca= ll for WG adoption.
The call ends on  August 24th 2015.
Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any= statements of approval or disapproval.

Recall t= hat:

- This is not WG Las= t Call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected to 
  modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG c= onsensus that the content is solid.  
  T= herefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you want to see c= hanges to its content.

- I= f you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your reasons= why, 
  and explain what it would take to ad= dress your concerns.

- If= you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues and we ca= n 
  begin a dialog about how best to address= them.
               =       
       =                      = ;                     &nbs= p;                     &nb= sp;                     &n= bsp;         
Luigi and Joel
____= ___________________________________________
lisp mailing lis= t
lisp@ietf.org<= br>https://www.= ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
= --Apple-Mail-67A9FD65-7089-4CFF-AF54-530682D2FA76-- From nobody Sun Aug 9 15:55:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16B21B29F3 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sj9va59KsP1w for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD161B29B2 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so2877644wic.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:54:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=y7Pdnk3kPW1eloAVwTkP/mDCQSwVv4bF8SQDWcwZOIw=; b=C9Cw7S6gVpsMW6tnie3BEMeZg8fyLrFPFO8TKaqo3jMYUGT1Ydvbw95Ly9q+bJKz7g xmdR2OZ9b8lv6j4Uht/R2ktO7XNWd7DwvqAK7t+2559GU+gDosMnxzx0hddNeS5hpSz/ LpRHh0AUzHoNFct2vAwrlllQEij55O565p3QsvjueVTA7OgndKML6QJB5Zh97TzJFUty m4gRoopsENSuixFpwRyUMQiY5wBdTOnVpZYxh0Gb9UhYomA34NZhZ6g4kWBhGF8iUkHH gwjwFG4uYEKQhZSgrDYKv5KpidfPXkP02KVpHYujnxmq4XqnPGKPUkvMzM2hxcrpsK6W vQig== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6XdclGPeP4zmlt7lMzcqIVlxBhz2rC+t0C7cw0OuuAApH6ehmLeyI7KqzcNborK3x1Tra X-Received: by 10.180.75.78 with SMTP id a14mr19730412wiw.68.1439160898656; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([37.77.58.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id du6sm3736401wib.24.2015.08.09.15.54.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Aug 2015 15:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:54:56 +0200 From: Job Snijders To: Luigi Iannone Message-ID: <20150809225456.GS30897@Vurt.local> References: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:55:01 -0000 On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 11:57:09PM +0200, Luigi Iannone wrote: > The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt > asked for WG adoption. Yes! Thank you for the effort. :-) Kind regards, Job From nobody Mon Aug 10 09:28:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4BF1B38D6 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id llQ6iqUzs8FF for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C6B1B38CE for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdrh1 with SMTP id h1so55144117pdr.0 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:references :to:message-id:mime-version; bh=frs8pG61OO9ZxFcauEf8Rn4xDBs93lG+hEB/ZWoNPqs=; b=UPnYdcT5YzFLcumK72Egu+3zRdqNHoRQxNidBcvvVu7cHFQx2w02WtXwi7V/36iYe3 nbero1wHOkLxKWOkw7SPg0vyVlAEZ5Ni6pz+wVXKF5gMzXMHciAy7AJIkYCSS/vq74E+ ZC6Y5INFcesL5cViRzETz1mve4A5I9X9luJ9kCGJH78CPxwglzlHKNLh9sr7GwJMc1H2 3vYVZB9rdoMgfvmygKaRLrq+0BtYDHZRGdf47SEeUaCW71UnkIDshcClM8SEynipVJW4 yOxgVm88oZxtHKxTggRe0bawODAU/9nVCcK8wYD14W7tSd7ndmCZavCUg93Q14hlXByT 1UOQ== X-Received: by 10.70.133.233 with SMTP id pf9mr38085999pdb.131.1439224114178; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v4sm20506051pdg.79.2015.08.10.09.28.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Dino Farinacci Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:28:28 -0700 References: <20150810114203.31393.26470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: LISP mailing list list Message-Id: <56ED76FD-3735-402B-972F-DA440BFE2C10@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] Fwd: Expiration impending: X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:28:52 -0000 Folks, I am going to let this Internet Draft expire. I believe that = multicast should be in the new charter but believe = draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free is a superior solution that provides a = lot of use-cases that mr-signalling cannot easily. Dino > Begin forwarded message: >=20 > From: IETF Secretariat > Subject: Expiration impending: = > Date: August 10, 2015 at 4:42:03 AM PDT > To: "Maria Napierala" , "Dino Farinacci" = >=20 > The following draft will expire soon: >=20 > Name: draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling > Title: LISP Control-Plane Multicast Signaling > State: I-D Exists > Expires: 2015-08-20 (in 1 week, 2 days) >=20 From nobody Mon Aug 10 15:39:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFC81A00DC for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mWIMjoj0sYDs for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x236.google.com (mail-pd0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D7F1A009C for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so35834686pdb.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Mm5rrb3Qbzez1UJHaYCMLcik/opjk4EA3Ktz5jjbnz0=; b=MIs4eQ2Q+wd+QhxwlvXr2WjECImoMLTZdHm2GvbS4hmy2llGNtgW8TSw3mkw2jazkK dJKD696tL36XtI6VRtheQHkwztA2THeT3pFWjJpqZXEpK0RBRm7pnNZsYhYl9USa44rf g7FtjBnWxF50ZO+PxDH8ZAky1qUv1mxZQ41aAA83vJ8mR6OWKsMwflO6m9qRSi59CPWT 2P0QZUt2uSFQKrWUz+K7x1jjEzNi6b5BA1zJq/aCwSk7Mp89YcnzqzOKKAMUo9bR+izZ XqM0HAzJXzEmKHpACI8N1FrZ5Qd7rwjrNqrkMoAa37hRVzdWvqFSTR6wte3P9xzMgYGp wK4g== X-Received: by 10.70.140.238 with SMTP id rj14mr49823323pdb.38.1439246362411; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.37.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lk4sm21310565pab.23.2015.08.10.15.39.20 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:39:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:39:24 -0000 > It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability = aspects, > focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work > on standard track.=20 Could we use different wording rather than =E2=80=9Cdropping the = scalability aspects=E2=80=9D. I know you mean to core routing table = scalability items. But we don=E2=80=99t want to convey in the charter = that for the various overlay use-cases LISP can provide that it won=E2=80=99= t scale. That is =E2=80=9Cscale of the protocol=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Chavi= ng the protocol solve the Internet scalability problem=E2=80=9D are two = different and orthongonal items. And I think LISP should continue to scale the Internet, it just should = not be the only or main focus of what LISP can provide. Dino From nobody Mon Aug 10 15:41:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5071A0122 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r6hGDBCQfhmX for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F78B1A0120 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdbfa8 with SMTP id fa8so35849545pdb.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ruf811sQZWLclJjXbgpg29mtUfOjIxx3rTQjYMQ7FgY=; b=ccci1g7pvT7Hq5Mr6svNugC6dqbwbu337+2ZFqrcC9Bg7GnbKapceS3kh3wwms55/9 CZmnlFXlBeML16rvIZpHgiByjHpDVxx2ynqMorC343HZqUZZHSeI/735v0yUcLEaj1fR Dbiw5e4TmZ6mrlLfslYKJXceiWAuJd7iBOzAROL4GgZF3qRUrsava72nEJzaT/6eOh69 Eov/JR/fjH7drRiMtW7tFXYwErzGNQ50CAfXfXpj1viPCz2P8o5Ny0FqXuwBT6iT76Dr GMZYeh5Q5Lqs0DvFpemvnVmLuo32aJc7RlpekrZqBevHHZlYjkGbAj5Z8cfKAewpRAZ9 ouig== X-Received: by 10.70.55.10 with SMTP id n10mr1927169pdp.47.1439246490387; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.37.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id oh9sm21169251pbb.26.2015.08.10.15.41.29 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:41:27 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:41:31 -0000 > Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay = model > in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane = already allows? > And what should be the scope? If the charter supports NVO3 use-cases, then the answer must be yes. Dino From nobody Mon Aug 10 15:42:23 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADC71A0173 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8bhcn-T2GdKF for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B06F1A0120 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacrr5 with SMTP id rr5so112620009pac.3 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Jj3go7RjkwHThRvOg+e296JxuPbXoGU0pJZdTOmweIw=; b=XXvanpdMRh3u2j1Lf/j8VhIFkcebTcVdxDB7Z46pYHkKj+C47kzwTFfF7CHftEMzZk L4IhTqJ/74PwFJHdXxGCQroE6Z17QV0dEC5nunAuZE5cyZTOib/u22MOVrgS3ab2LWs9 +WaFSs407ChqEaqb9+9DNSb9EYD/n5MP7JWai3YPPDePDVusaJOpiZEmE+4aBLNpqMv1 0IUSt6hCmrhMCMHJpFNZlENTAcFrUv0+IZvXLhFxWNsIUf6XhPxGNhqZYUJ8jDHCsqnL /+/cB8lWI93ch0IXizJy8oomKkz1O44DFD6YNO6isH/J+ueUM+C7K5mLdCsgfGsY8DT6 oZhw== X-Received: by 10.66.245.142 with SMTP id xo14mr48194890pac.151.1439246540859; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.37.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id oh9sm21169251pbb.26.2015.08.10.15.42.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:42:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:42:22 -0000 > - LISP VPN (including integration with IPsec) > - NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including support for VM = mobility) > - SDN/NFV (including support for service chaining) > - IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure for IoT applications) > - Mobile Node (LISP-MN mobility) And I would say all these use-cases must support multicast packets and = packets that traverse through NATs. Those are not separate use-cases but = baselines that each use-case needs to support. Dino From nobody Mon Aug 10 15:49:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342891A0191 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:49:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D55X9UViZduK for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 299031A00CD for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151CB24024B for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:49:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2DF5240C1C for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT) References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:49:28 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:49:31 -0000 Casn you expand a bit. It is not obvious to me that either IoT or Mobile Node needs multicast support from LISP for its LISP usage. For example, people keep talking about multicast video, but in fact we know that is a corner case and become even less common. Data Center clearly needs some multicast. I can see some argument for VPN. Since SDN is simply a way of deploying other things, multicast in VPN contexts clearly depends upon what problem you are using SDN to solve. Yours, Joel On 8/10/15 6:42 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> - LISP VPN (including integration with IPsec) >> - NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including support for VM mobility) >> - SDN/NFV (including support for service chaining) >> - IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure for IoT applications) >> - Mobile Node (LISP-MN mobility) > > And I would say all these use-cases must support multicast packets and packets that traverse through NATs. Those are not separate use-cases but baselines that each use-case needs to support. > > Dino > From nobody Mon Aug 10 16:11:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AEA1A1A12 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iiZpPdNjhMGZ for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F641A1A0C for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacgr6 with SMTP id gr6so36241916pac.2 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TuLfrHWbqs6t+TSCQW9oDIzG4YzSx4l55sbi8c0S9Aw=; b=g1LukYL89RBNHvbcZqyth80fVPQLzy2wMNx2IwQ6aTITXySvkOwkTaaqXrZQNCIWIH oN6hY7GNiruq4bipW4pGtVwLx0Z0JJc/jpWe24MqYlIrNUKFb4r7xMr2EON1KPkllU59 /40uVhWlDIoylzqVwH7h12VKOZU+kCMEHjs3U45KvbfcYJkGD9KWTjVz7DvnzrTj6rnM N5Av4x12V/02FE5Jj1fjrmxjI+vsq0kDCYiLF2QooIEs2yyJysqk/tvrYSpMDfg4AmI8 b9SKo0jD8v5Qyb/+C/VpRJuRrECJxJzRWc34T2pD+QNPWf2R4mRenblyCcylpRKwVr5J FsEw== X-Received: by 10.66.160.1 with SMTP id xg1mr49481226pab.27.1439248290956; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.37.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nh3sm34529pdb.72.2015.08.10.16.11.29 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:11:28 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:11:32 -0000 > Casn you expand a bit. It is not obvious to me that either IoT or = Mobile Node needs multicast support from LISP for its LISP usage. On IoT or mobile node may want to send multicast packets. Those = multicast packets need to get to receivers. The receivers may be at LISP = sites. > For example, people keep talking about multicast video, but in fact we = know that is a corner case and become even less common. If you want to support other transports and you want to stretch L2 = subnets, then ARP and IPv6 link-local multicast will need to be = supported. That means the overlay needs to transport multicast packets. > Data Center clearly needs some multicast. I can see some argument for = VPN. Right. And a node in a VPN site can be anywhere. > Since SDN is simply a way of deploying other things, multicast in VPN = contexts clearly depends upon what problem you are using SDN to solve. SDN, in my mind is a network management mechanism. When we talk about = the LISP architecture and protocols, we are talking about in-network = control-plane mechanisms (and I mean between nodes in the network in a = distributed fashion). Dino >=20 > Yours, > Joel >=20 > On 8/10/15 6:42 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> - LISP VPN (including integration with IPsec) >>> - NVO3 use case for DC virtualization (including support for VM = mobility) >>> - SDN/NFV (including support for service chaining) >>> - IoT (LISP as connecting infrastructure for IoT applications) >>> - Mobile Node (LISP-MN mobility) >>=20 >> And I would say all these use-cases must support multicast packets = and packets that traverse through NATs. Those are not separate use-cases = but baselines that each use-case needs to support. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 11 13:49:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA1B1B2A7C for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCw8PlgggyKG for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com (mail-wi0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C18991B2A79 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so476386wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=D7eKc4pJqJOHIUf8+bIJL0xcYdxJ0PqgNpQC41Y4Ih8=; b=DHFsllSGAKa2Aq20frOOZ9Q/NuZlu884FCmM8UsYloZpe/wpY8uas0hra3gPaBreCb 4UCz8C34NC8bw4klWA59Bh/H19YLzvDcFeGrJ1Dv3ybZ93VpRXc1lWRlvTbNh0m3GG7e Pg9R3yTquES4OpJdLAkyDqzkmG2AS8oWdwKlm53DNKHE2tOXjqT83DCS4Yv9i5f4dJQ0 tiSaLXF7Doelq+E1S8VMU20MfFdLmHOOICBD7FsxcgfpxwqXqpNqFh1JapEWZB9iT2/O zZD81bTQnx8IKQuMgirXVVxQQPq+Npl9b5Sm07azJXuCUjfVu6sZeqtJ9CPLrZDwqAew O0Fw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmfoeSLsmocrj/TbPcB6HEjQE2gBkKslGzhS8wXomEuFL1UYJuTPbbFne8zgPcrsowNSln6 X-Received: by 10.194.95.71 with SMTP id di7mr61964833wjb.125.1439326185151; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.160.209.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lj2sm20379313wic.1.2015.08.11.13.49.39 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:49:29 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A0DECE1-BB2D-4751-8AA2-8F20FFF4E64A@gigix.net> References: To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:49:48 -0000 > On 11 Aug 2015, at 00:39, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 >> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability = aspects, >> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work >> on standard track.=20 >=20 > Could we use different wording rather than =E2=80=9Cdropping the = scalability aspects=E2=80=9D. I know you mean to core routing table = scalability items. But we don=E2=80=99t want to convey in the charter = that for the various overlay use-cases LISP can provide that it won=E2=80=99= t scale. That is =E2=80=9Cscale of the protocol=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Chavi= ng the protocol solve the Internet scalability problem=E2=80=9D are two = different and orthongonal items. Agreed. That was just me being lazy writing. ;-) What I meant was exactly the Internet routing table scalability, not the = scalability of the protocol. ciao L. >=20 > And I think LISP should continue to scale the Internet, it just should = not be the only or main focus of what LISP can provide. >=20 > Dino >=20 From nobody Tue Aug 11 13:53:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6FD1B2A91 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:53:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0JE-9SlslmrG for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26D081B2A8D for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so605803wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:53:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:message-id:mime-version :subject:date:references:cc:to; bh=u5J5h7dnVtx4YKhzHOmzoai1z/QAGyD1vcyFuJWmMiw=; b=D2ytcJVxhyNUfcmzw7e1yp4l/kaeZlRUgopfmUL0IUzM2hO907ZgWVPu9f/AA8g9XS 6S8V7NGknvbFmlYUQQZFLgcTWgGc6FVaoXjeFb4nXT2K4Be8g4jIfJ4OWR92V97ZvqhP B32xwAQc7Sr8ABr9aJ+a5RQzHmCaqLvVhVfRiUnuCLm3JrPAIXP+wf9/TXAeMNI3A5kU MW/yULSDN7QsZPrdurJckVqIvL5CAgl7V9iOusYw/CUy3Cfu76F4/ka/sVnI464zSBa7 dw7lXwJaj0h/BWQPX1TwVaxDfrfNdVy0yw/g0KcICTvSsmCAUShL5CUw3Onhdb7n1Ae8 RFFg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkeM8m1W0npvtzRVyWWvMnSLHiYo8mI8geRnNkJps8Zk7fw1AUMgl0Y3w6cch7WGwzeVepu X-Received: by 10.180.8.68 with SMTP id p4mr40801637wia.27.1439326421885; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.3] ([37.160.209.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm5066764wix.1.2015.08.11.13.53.33 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:53:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_07CF380A-3141-4271-9545-01C8BB7EF603" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:53:21 +0200 References: <11A51762-719E-4318-A435-8235DC62D1BE@gmail.com> To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: [lisp] LISP minutes IETF 93 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:53:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_07CF380A-3141-4271-9545-01C8BB7EF603 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi All, hereafter you can find the minutes of our last meeting. Available also at: = https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-lisp = Please let us know if you have any comment on them. ciao Luigi = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------- - Administration =20 Halpern/Iannone - Blue Sheets - Agenda Bashing - Status reports for WG drafts [Darrel Lewis] will send in a week the new updated DDT draft. [Terry Manderson] proposes to re-arrange the agenda to start with WG = documents. The WG accepts.=20 o WG Documents Update - LISP LCAF https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10 D. Farinacci [Joel Halpern] notices that the document does not explain how to use the = different types. [Darrel Lewis] the document should be rewritten to be more readable.=20 [Darrel Lewis/Joel Halpern] propose to only put in the document how to = make LCAF and a few examples instead of a full list. [Dino Farinacci] answers that most of types proposed in the document = are described in other drafts (some being expired). [Joel Halpern] reminds that this draft blocks intro document as LCAF is = a normative reference for it. - LISP Crypto https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-01 D. Farinacci [Darrel Lewis] likes the securization of the control-plane but questions = why proposing a new mechanism for the data-plane while ESP is already = widely deployed and optimised. [Dino Farinacci] says that for him the important part of LISP is the = control-plane, how the data-plane is made is a detail. [Dino Farinacci] in ESP there is some functions that are not necessary = and using IPSEC means that it would be more headers and then having MTU = issues.=20 [? from Cisco] asks how to migrate to a non-security-enabled to a = security-enabled LISP site. [Dino Farinacci] this is straightforward: if the LCAF is not = understood, you skip it. o Rechartering Discussion - Cloud SOHO Services D. Saucez [Damien Saucez] The presentation is a demo of multihoming in SOHO = networks with LISP.=20 [Dino Farinacci/Albert Cabellos] By experience in public NATed = environments and Amazone, it works pretty fine. In more constraints = environments (e.g., corporate networks) it is harder as firewalls are = usually not open. [Damien Saucez] if Skype can pass, then LISP should pass as well, we = have to find viable solutions for such environments [Sharon Barkai] says that what matters is the construction of the overly = to go to the Cloud. [Damien Saucez] of course, this is the mapping system that make all = here. The data-plane is a detail and it may not be necessary to have the = LISP data-plane [Darrel Lewis] this demo fits very well in the multi-homing use case = part of the original charter and it should be in the new charter. - LISP WG Mailing List Summary A. Cabellos - Open mic discussion [Darrel Lewis/Joel Halpern] important to separate technical changes and = use cases. We have to clearly define what are the changes to put RFC = 6830bis and those not to put in RFC6830bis. [Darrel Lewis]: do not tight the different protocol details and the core = (e.g., mapping system, NAT traversal=85) to a particular use case. [Terry Manderson]: proposes to remove the IAB requirement about = scalability of routing table problem to concentrate on the core protocol = and think about the critical use cases that the WG want to work on. [Joel Halpern/Dino Farinacci/Albert Cabellos] agree with Terry [Ed Lopez] says problem can be separated in two: the case of LISP as = end-system, and the one in intermediate system. [Darrel Lewis] make the distinction between immediate use cases and = exploratory use cases. [Michael Menth] says it is important to have deployment to understand = what could be the use case. [Sharon Barkai] says that what is important is the notion of overlay and = that the group should propose a clear interface for =93map assisted = overlays=94. Opening the schema to different solutions and underlays. [Larry Kreeger]: proposes to get more with NVO3. [Joel Halpern]: asks attendees to refine categories and send to the list o Non WG Documents - LISP Hybrid Access https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-menth-lisp-ha-00 A. Stockmayer [Darrel Lewis] Maybe it would be possible to put state in the mapping = system instead of in the boxes so to be compatible [Andreas Stockmayer] then it is not possible to have the timestamp. [?] asks if LISP is necessary to do it. [Luigi Iannone] the advantage of LISP is that it provides a fully = functional system (control-plane + data-plane). - LISP Multi Tuple EIDs = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-multi-tuple-eids-00 A. Cabellos --Apple-Mail=_07CF380A-3141-4271-9545-01C8BB7EF603 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi All,

hereafter you can find the minutes of our last = meeting.
Available also at: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-lisp=

Please let us = know if you have any comment on them.

ciao

Luigi


---------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------
- = Administration        
=    Halpern/Iannone
   - = Blue Sheets
   - Agenda Bashing
   - Status reports for WG drafts

[Darrel Lewis] will  send in a week the = new updated DDT draft.

[Terry Manderson] = proposes to re-arrange the agenda to start with WG documents. The WG = accepts.


o WG Documents = Update

- LISP LCAF
=     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10
    D. Farinacci

[Joel Halpern] notices that the document does not explain how = to use the different types.
[Darrel Lewis] the document = should be rewritten to be more readable.
[Darrel = Lewis/Joel Halpern] propose to only put in the document how to make LCAF = and a few examples instead of a full list.
=    [Dino Farinacci] answers that most of types proposed = in the document are described in other drafts (some being expired).
[Joel Halpern] reminds that this draft blocks intro document = as LCAF is a normative reference for it.


- LISP Crypto
=        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-01
       D. Farinacci

[Darrel Lewis] likes the securization of the = control-plane but questions why proposing a new mechanism for the = data-plane while ESP is already widely deployed and optimised.
  [Dino Farinacci] says that for him the important = part of LISP is the control-plane, how the data-plane is made is a = detail.
  [Dino Farinacci] in ESP there is some = functions that are not necessary and using IPSEC means that it would be = more headers and then having MTU issues.
[? from Cisco] = asks how to migrate to a non-security-enabled  to a = security-enabled LISP site.
  [Dino Farinacci] = this is straightforward: if the LCAF is not understood, you skip it.



o Rechartering = Discussion

- Cloud SOHO Services
=            D. = Saucez

[Damien Saucez] The presentation is = a demo of multihoming in SOHO networks with LISP.
[Dino = Farinacci/Albert Cabellos] By experience in public NATed environments = and Amazone, it works pretty fine. In more constraints environments = (e.g., corporate networks) it is harder as firewalls are usually not = open.
   [Damien Saucez] if Skype can = pass, then LISP should pass as well, we have to find viable solutions = for such environments
[Sharon Barkai] says that what = matters is the construction of the overly to go to the Cloud.
   [Damien Saucez] of course, this is the = mapping system that make all here. The data-plane is a detail and it may = not be necessary to have the LISP data-plane
[Darrel = Lewis] this demo fits very well in the multi-homing use case part of the = original charter and it should be in the new charter.


- LISP WG Mailing List Summary
=     A. Cabellos

- Open = mic discussion

[Darrel Lewis/Joel Halpern] =  important to separate technical changes and use cases. We have to = clearly define what are the changes to put RFC 6830bis and those not to = put in RFC6830bis.

[Darrel Lewis]: do not = tight the different protocol details and the core (e.g., mapping system, = NAT traversal=85) to a particular use case.

[Terry Manderson]: proposes to remove the IAB requirement = about scalability of routing table problem to concentrate on the core = protocol and think about the critical use cases that the WG want to work = on.

  [Joel Halpern/Dino = Farinacci/Albert Cabellos] agree with Terry

[Ed Lopez] says problem can be separated in two: the case of = LISP as end-system, and the one in intermediate system.

[Darrel Lewis] make the distinction between immediate use = cases and exploratory use cases.

[Michael = Menth] says it is important to have deployment to understand what could = be the use case.

[Sharon Barkai] says that = what is important is the notion of overlay and that the group should = propose a clear interface for =93map assisted overlays=94. Opening the = schema to different solutions and underlays.

[Larry Kreeger]: proposes to get more with NVO3.

[Joel Halpern]: asks attendees to refine = categories and send to the list


o Non WG Documents

- LISP Hybrid = Access
=           https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-menth-lisp-ha-00
=            A. = Stockmayer

[Darrel Lewis] Maybe it would be = possible to put state in the mapping system instead of in the boxes so = to be compatible
   [Andreas Stockmayer] = then it is not possible to have the timestamp.
[?] asks if = LISP is necessary to do it.
  [Luigi Iannone] = the advantage of LISP is that it provides a fully functional system = (control-plane + data-plane).

- LISP Multi = Tuple EIDs
=           https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-multi-tup= le-eids-00
=            A. = Cabellos


















= --Apple-Mail=_07CF380A-3141-4271-9545-01C8BB7EF603-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 10:20:23 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E551C1A9148 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5mp9DFz7DYRs for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15291A90D2 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so13329477lbc.2 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZmTimqLGrWSyvIh2tZWFuLPDBz36qGc4r0oVmDKz9FQ=; b=KUAzWGIFE2jbYe0DjxS2jZB+sSoEW4lvNw1I8pfU2zRIUPiMTPina/9YGZ/kF8sY+2 1vklglZORYTNRw+TA78OP+2Dx6j05z6GuA19GHPwybjO/4Y7gyiM4ShRMMxGYBfMinre VMfW3fYFU5CuWnPO8op2OZ5NMKm5SQ0kPPhKjotxT+ynCViRe01wVyVLsLI8sK/DpJGC F7/EtA4swFtrSUqMxZvVUAyAgb/djLUtgVBtHUhC8YjLCOcgMjTLXitC2G75v9VG/iDV 06aBkY/4JKhW+FZGaYCkWy3v8C2KFUeUkqS6vl/K+7cTHk2c/LvbWtoflwrWJG6cVSff LLiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6g2bj8EKRHWMDwhNt5CJDiOCsv098NMj/dru6qBabjOzd4aH5gmr/orE8bUjyuaFrdRRG MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.156.168 with SMTP id wf8mr32823532lbb.114.1439400019172; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.88.74 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [166.170.39.149] Received: by 10.25.88.74 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:20:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Stig Venaas To: Dino Farinacci Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33f6ed53683051d206eab Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:20:22 -0000 --001a11c33f6ed53683051d206eab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobility. Stig --001a11c33f6ed53683051d206eab Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobility.

Stig

--001a11c33f6ed53683051d206eab-- From nobody Wed Aug 12 10:23:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AECD1A9171 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1sot9mQH3MQP for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A43AB1A916C for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pawu10 with SMTP id u10so18693850paw.1 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KaoYbsbkD8k6Kw8Ob8aAmq8A5SvmwTE+q8IkJn7itmk=; b=jv8zzT3IriTvyYgvOyvVADQ8cpugGAeS4H1t2jD3BPOiHk5rAShXZQNQeRmYbau7fB kgyuZnr+xY2taFe1sn51PUlc2xhvh51yIJa2kZ0OzX3XsHIixzPz1oVHCjUOS8k+Hzo/ 6hJQ/ox0X6DCrXhwljKeO7RETAVRr3C+vPkooVIa53pNCV0Uv7r/FhMfMekPQB8cxh34 6xDOUQS5S7FrqfzC4x88zP7cAkWxHDlIrRbt3jjEigbmCuuj/GyTq8xvNxfxpfd80d4a Rkoi5G0FSHBi/NqQld4eM2w3LvSffMy7Fs+DNUJYyPyolzqZdynl5dyJjw78oqT6V5zK wqhw== X-Received: by 10.66.252.131 with SMTP id zs3mr31449034pac.75.1439400176356; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.169.113.83] (71-6-80-11.static-ip.telepacific.net. [71.6.80.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qf6sm7104262pbb.64.2015.08.12.10.22.51 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:22:51 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> To: Stig Venaas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:22:58 -0000 Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are = moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case. Dino > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: >=20 > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to = do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes = mobility. >=20 > Stig From nobody Wed Aug 12 10:44:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF06E1A92E0 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVsa-LDS3IJJ for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com (mail-lb0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73FEA1A8A7B for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbtg9 with SMTP id tg9so13868471lbb.1 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VrbMK5VJ6v14a1SmvysFZtr9cF4i4LA7mgOPr6Fi1fA=; b=QLN1vID0G7y8fEGrguCLUruT//Ykx6W6ULys9MzdCu7hmcY2+6MJFoOqCKoCTrQpRU /QNkUg6lgXd3CJAMKpLH4BK/+CfBkdb3TTjzUN2qevpKIUPqVVJO6aS6fIHXNPi6C5+P NDk05eFDtU7UOvEOo24z2CeLfjmJf9Yyt5AltbuT/jPGMY7i+CqKmsSYbIQKsfJjLSAz sBS0t4D0EmjcAS6/akTKoWYsNK7imv3PI8VE5MEUVHYDWSjmA5AkVCSws+mzZO/ftSzJ 0szn0HsY/DlyxNkkZHgQT0EFaTbn44ixHbqn9PhANJ2NQgxYYBFxJvyF7beo0Tpr3LM4 WA5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNMAE76AhziJOjZ4MrDBnyiqUelBP/2QP0d5TCTtaiggMSQ4Iuo2BrfFixooWabIFfiudz MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.234.197 with SMTP id ug5mr18831933lbc.79.1439401451045; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.88.74 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [166.170.39.149] Received: by 10.25.88.74 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:44:10 -0700 Message-ID: From: Stig Venaas To: Dino Farinacci Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3db242ddbf5051d20c41e Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:44:14 -0000 --001a11c3db242ddbf5051d20c41e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" wrote: > > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case. Agree Stig > > Dino > > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: > > > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobility. > > > > Stig > --001a11c3db242ddbf5051d20c41e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case.

Agree

Stig

>
> Dino
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobility.
> >
> > Stig
>

--001a11c3db242ddbf5051d20c41e-- From nobody Thu Aug 13 15:49:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B4C1B3BB6 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:49:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4p_OoWVPF22 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C35441ACE7D for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:49:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1200; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439506170; x=1440715770; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=wIUXrAwbc8OgGzBP3rwTC6kapFypg3VHkRn0dgeGeEM=; b=BMRLLQtBIpQR8Aixvv3ElmNWBb+wXrxNeB9OIudmcYKgmCn4gzClNLlN cxF5NbYHcRaMVEyV+2QcyuoVjDb5cvHdtqFis0PTE8c3fmTk1Paz32J7O O31U51mwfOE9rNnc77D/Ss9dqcPsXDkt0H8WeElJwN3qgzal8gatxdnl6 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B3AgB9Hs1V/5hdJa1dgxtUaQa9eAEJgWsKhXkCgUY4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEEAQEBawsQAgEIDjgnCyUCBAENBYguDdB5AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSLU4UJB4QsBY0TiAcBh2+EfJokJoN9cYFIgQQBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,673,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="178391439" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2015 22:49:17 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7DMnHIJ028688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:49:17 GMT Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:49:16 -0500 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (173.36.12.88) by xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:49:16 -0500 Received: from xmb-aln-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.2.62]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:49:16 -0500 From: "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" To: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model Thread-Index: AQHQ0u+ISWFCJaTPOkmA8lzplhyarp4KbSaA Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:49:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> In-Reply-To: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <02A53573507B374EA3F33F44EA5C01A6@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:49:31 -0000 Yes to extending the overlay model to support multiple data plane encap types. Vina On 8/9/15 3:05 PM, "Luigi Iannone" wrote: >Hi, > >LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >on each other. >However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications >allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. > >In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =B3map assisted overlays=B2 >more work is needed. > >In this context the WG should also decide whether just an >extended/enhanced >data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger >and=20 >allow as well to support multiple headers type? >Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >(e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) > >Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay model >in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane already >allows? >And what should be the scope? > >Joel & Luigi > > =20 >_______________________________________________ >lisp mailing list >lisp@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From fcoras.lists@gmail.com Thu Aug 13 16:38:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8081ACEE1 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfnY_qIQuGia for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC2781ACEE0 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so2014672wic.1 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:38:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lT5CKlertxsJpSg4qHP3Fzak9a2n485pICzGkf1mRiw=; b=01EP+CiuWcW0axLJpMAu2+sFuBAl3U3dNW0VeCu/kWFqIPqJZSGftlAYcbfrwluGWK +fS8PXczGZVOvBBC/Z4zE2RR3/dFWrnifiUh0E5nxzq6sU6jZK9zLbi8ql9hxe8tycUC SgpipQY7brCLC7Xkhl59ZheZjF5bjMs1nZCW8HMKbOVAC/K3kJTF5SSeoV/4mqHQCj4V wypQTrmIfnsx/wNXQjf+LODX2psYVsyjPxyUU2kg5GmhIj5W5fsS0onnMP7G7PkcPcTa 40dNhQLl+oRxZDMxG8xezGQWlL37VeAo0K1ChDAo1UL2KR6KbdXH11iIT3eaIJF3zFQ+ KXqA== X-Received: by 10.180.221.140 with SMTP id qe12mr12209329wic.54.1439509102663; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([90.74.25.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gm20sm5523230wjc.17.2015.08.13.16.38.21 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Florin Coras In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 01:38:20 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> To: "Vina Ermagan (vermagan)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:39:57 -0000 +1=20 Florin > On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Vina Ermagan (vermagan) = wrote: >=20 > Yes to extending the overlay model to support multiple data plane = encap > types. >=20 > Vina >=20 > On 8/9/15 3:05 PM, "Luigi Iannone" wrote: >=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >> by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >> on each other. >> However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current = specifications >> allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >>=20 >> In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =B3map assisted = overlays=B2 >> more work is needed. >>=20 >> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an >> extended/enhanced >> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly = larger >> and=20 >> allow as well to support multiple headers type? >> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >> (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >>=20 >> Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay = model >> in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane = already >> allows? >> And what should be the scope? >>=20 >> Joel & Luigi >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Thu Aug 13 20:54:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153BD1A6FEC for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FMTCoZnAVsgX for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 021221A6EF0 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:54:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1854; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439524463; x=1440734063; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=G3uti/dlPWm/WaZ80i6ETC1+2Icr16VgstOcVXZNoII=; b=NnHj/QOIjy2fOVb54Ii8t3jQrbrQIEALo3lkC8zuv55Czm9twwCFsqxb 4W5hduoQ8GQsVb0dChku7nuwKIMqu3SekcS7Sb8QpiEkVhlZL83eK2knj Y3mBqBVR9dSlh8r8oKKhFHZnks+FPaxP9/B3zNFPEhEAb4AuloJMXOfq/ g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B3AgAtZs1V/5pdJa1dgxtUab1+AQmBawqFeQKBQTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDAQEBAWsLBQsCAQgOCh0RIQYBCiUCBA4FiBkDCggNymQNhVUBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBItTgk+CBzMHgxiBFAWNE4gHAYdvghp1gW2Sboc2JoN9cYJMAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,675,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="18518271" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2015 03:54:08 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7E3s9ic025370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Aug 2015 03:54:09 GMT Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:54:08 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (173.37.183.86) by xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:54:08 -0500 Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.202]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:54:07 -0500 From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" To: Florin Coras Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model Thread-Index: AQHQ0u+IpkJw+ja3VUedXoV3w3EVIJ4K4oGAgAANtwD///OmjA== Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 03:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 03:54:26 -0000 +1 Victor > On Aug 13, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Florin Coras wrote: >=20 > +1=20 >=20 > Florin >=20 >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Vina Ermagan (vermagan) wrote: >>=20 >> Yes to extending the overlay model to support multiple data plane encap >> types. >>=20 >> Vina >>=20 >>> On 8/9/15 3:05 PM, "Luigi Iannone" wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >>> by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >>> on each other. >>> However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications >>> allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >>>=20 >>> In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =B3map assisted overlays= =B2 >>> more work is needed. >>>=20 >>> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an >>> extended/enhanced >>> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger >>> and=20 >>> allow as well to support multiple headers type? >>> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >>> (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >>>=20 >>> Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay mod= el >>> in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane alrea= dy >>> allows? >>> And what should be the scope? >>>=20 >>> Joel & Luigi >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Fri Aug 14 01:25:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C07F1A1B13 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 01:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nx5huhHBesxy for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 01:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2381A1B0D for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 01:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw-3.ac.upc.es (gw-3.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.9]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7E6QVhx009456; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:26:31 +0200 Received: from [10.61.83.134] (unknown [173.38.220.38]) by gw-3.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B18E256C; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:25:38 +0200 (CEST) To: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> From: Lori Jakab Organization: LISPmob Message-ID: <55CDA601.2020308@lispmob.org> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:25:37 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 08:25:45 -0000 On 8/10/15 1:05 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi, > > LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where > by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped > on each other. > However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications > allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. > > In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined “map assisted overlays” > more work is needed. > > In this context the WG should also decide whether just an extended/enhanced > data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger and > allow as well to support multiple headers type? > Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG > (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) I think supporting multiple headers is the better option. -Lori > > Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay model > in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane already allows? > And what should be the scope? > > Joel & Luigi From nobody Fri Aug 14 04:39:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BE71ACD43 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L_gUcQv0BqVN for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A2F1ACD36 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw-2.ac.upc.es (gw-2.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.8]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7E9eLIk014953 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:40:21 +0200 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by gw-2.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A457297A for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:39:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so42212064lag.3 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.87.116 with SMTP id w20mr43091113laz.119.1439552367818; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.24.73 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55CDA601.2020308@lispmob.org> References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <55CDA601.2020308@lispmob.org> From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:39:08 +0200 Message-ID: To: Lori Jakab Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c237c484ff76051d43e7f4 Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:39:32 -0000 --001a11c237c484ff76051d43e7f4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > In this context the WG should also decide whether just an > extended/enhanced > > data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger > and > > allow as well to support multiple headers type? > > Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG > > (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) > > I think supporting multiple headers is the better option. > > I also think that multiple header support makes a lot of sense Alberto --001a11c237c484ff76051d43e7f4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an extended/enh= anced
> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly large= r and
> allow as well to support multiple headers type?
> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG
> (e.g.=C2=A0 VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.)

I think supporting multiple headers is the better option.

I also think that = multiple header support makes a lot of sense

Alberto
--001a11c237c484ff76051d43e7f4-- From sharon.barkai@hp.com Wed Aug 12 13:55:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FC41ACDD4 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ly9RSxC0_oGN for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g1t5425.austin.hp.com (g1t5425.austin.hp.com [15.216.225.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA56C1ACDD3 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from G2W4316.americas.hpqcorp.net (g2w4316.austin.hp.com [16.197.9.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g1t5425.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C8E336; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from G1W5782.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.193.26.0) by G2W4316.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.197.9.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.169.1; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:54:08 +0000 Received: from G2W2527.americas.hpqcorp.net ([169.254.7.6]) by G1W5782.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.193.26.0]) with mapi id 14.03.0169.001; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:54:08 +0000 From: "Barkai, Sharon" To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Thread-Topic: lisp-subscribe for multicast (S,G) entries Thread-Index: AQHQyVAH1GARBjSCCUWn9ERcEsvRoJ4IoqeAgAAIH4CAAC89gIAAFW0W Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <3142A65D-5027-4E8F-B91A-81ECF1BA6018@gmail.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0700 Cc: Victor Moreno , "IJsbrand \(Ice\) Wijnands" , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] lisp-subscribe for multicast (S,G) entries X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:30:15 -0000 Just a thought, maybe irrelevant but .. Can we perhaps generalize somehow pub-sub registrations management procedur= es / protocol for map-assisted-overlay.. .. derive multicast channel subscription as first instantiation, followed b= y others such as mapping subscriptions etc. Potentially all subscriptions will inevitably require allotted compute mach= inery in the back to fulfill - replicators, trigger loops. Etc. --szb On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal > wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Dino Farinacci > wrote: I want an updated spec that is ready and fully specified for implementation= . I want to do an early implementation of lisp-subscribe. Glad to hear that! That would be great to show at the IETF! The simplicity of the proposal will be measured if I can start coding in th= e morning and by end of day it is all working and committed to my repositor= y. ;-) Hope that would be the case :) From nobody Sat Aug 15 13:32:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95031A916F for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:32:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.659 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.34, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XkawDMCap8NB for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36D501A9147 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so43290636wic.0 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:references:from :mime-version:in-reply-to:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=LdFmIwyE/9p7LebM8IH8aOxwSbX2wUYWQCYSDtjBBkM=; b=fnJ+sPHV7jr0IVXpkZc6z9yLUxISDdXf3LckstMA7J9PosGXSKkMkXj/sKqG3xeoQ+ 5yYKpRgO5mymyYuF4aDof8vRTuwYTasAOtqfABS+wfQnsdfrwRFjwyRjOBbT/7JDLPGY KVQgsZ4q1R0o3XLrit5NhNr59RoxtmRrwWORyPHyOEKrJqNsFRGbI0GZV6AgjSIdwVIV 5tx7RWqfe7nrR+3E3azakhSZ3yo0rJS1J2dkTAURDdqViLx9WiT0ZfVxl1QJ7STX+qGm h4U1+kLVM6E024gzK9UAByIxpaN+8kaYJwEMK0U4h0gimtfFgb7N8v04SDozyohIQgc2 TbBg== X-Received: by 10.194.95.41 with SMTP id dh9mr12886082wjb.55.1439670739970; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.154] ([90.174.2.22]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ll1sm9195758wic.14.2015.08.15.13.32.14 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-E1A0FCB4-C879-44A7-9D83-B188CD846D3A Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> From: Damien Saucez Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:18:18 +0200 To: Stig Venaas X-Mailer: iPod touch Mail (12H321) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:32:22 -0000 --Apple-Mail-E1A0FCB4-C879-44A7-9D83-B188CD846D3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in al= l use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypotheti= cal requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new versio= n ? Damien Saucez=20 > On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" wrote: > > > > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are movi= ng. There are severl military applications for this use-case. >=20 > Agree >=20 > Stig >=20 > > > > Dino > > > > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: > > > > > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to d= o multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobilit= y. > > > > > > Stig > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail-E1A0FCB4-C879-44A7-9D83-B188CD846D3A Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello,

I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothetical requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new version ?

Damien Saucez 

On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:


On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case.

Agree

Stig

>
> Dino
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobility.
> >
> > Stig
>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
--Apple-Mail-E1A0FCB4-C879-44A7-9D83-B188CD846D3A-- From nobody Sat Aug 15 15:03:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D5E1B29F6 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OyBxH_1Yu2VU for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C35021B29F5 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacrr5 with SMTP id rr5so82591544pac.3 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dzwKOzvWpA+6MeaVTzMorzsotCze/5+4PTdb7iVj8yI=; b=R5Dbl4zPsXhMKovmJfJfeGcdQ6txJUhNyqUiiWxRXeFWLpKss8QQ6pW3gGTkfAdl4s +mnGIc1yZeqYmSM8dNBGkXFtnrBZSIb6Y0gm1vwegimRlRNvtY8pf/cSuxjL5AiRHmWr bs9iJreLGWsVkXIG18glhtEz7i17X2rbj9/uBhRCM2RDg+A4Mx8gchQwaR6V62MHsDja Y/zTDPQpgmuiouXU18/1pi5gctLXDlaCgjryV2IhLGnS2IeF4Evl4tfy7SdeJaMsPHyn Fs/MHWGvf26WoFpbfrlVpa2Zx1kP5woCpRku0wXpsfeV26NgbD+E3CtBhpSA4DGVpnUr 0v+A== X-Received: by 10.66.65.106 with SMTP id w10mr100833495pas.111.1439676203292; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.86] (adsl-76-254-33-203.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net. [76.254.33.203]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dm6sm9765775pdb.36.2015.08.15.15.03.22 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-84B4BE0A-615E-462F-8631-AE74EA243ED2 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: farinacci@gmail.com X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H321) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:03:20 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> To: Damien Saucez Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:03:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail-84B4BE0A-615E-462F-8631-AE74EA243ED2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The logic follows like this: If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support is requi= red. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch subnets. If yo= u stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If broadcast frame s= upport is needed, then multicast support on the overlay is needed.=20 And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, homenet,= or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required.=20 Dino > On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez wrote= : >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in a= ll use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothet= ical requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new versi= on ? >=20 > Damien Saucez=20 >=20 >> On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" wrote: >> > >> > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are mov= ing. There are severl military applications for this use-case. >>=20 >> Agree >>=20 >> Stig >>=20 >> > >> > Dino >> > >> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: >> > > >> > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to d= o multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobilit= y. >> > > >> > > Stig >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail-84B4BE0A-615E-462F-8631-AE74EA243ED2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The logic follows like this= :

If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L= 2 overlay support is required. If L2 overlay support is required, then you m= ust stretch subnets. If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is requ= ired. If broadcast frame support is needed, then multicast support on the ov= erlay is needed. 

And if L2 overlays are going= to be supported in cloud environments, homenet, or in containers, then NAT-= traversal support is required. 

Dino

On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I understand tha= t multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in all use cases, but= the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothetical requirements= or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new version ?
Damien Saucez 

On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Sti= g Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrot= e:


On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are mov= ing. There are severl military applications for this use-case.

Agree

Stig

>
> Dino
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want t= o do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobi= lity.
> >
> > Stig
>

____________________= ___________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman= /listinfo/lisp
= --Apple-Mail-84B4BE0A-615E-462F-8631-AE74EA243ED2-- From nobody Mon Aug 17 01:05:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9902E1A8783 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qpefZbiRurVY for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964361A877E for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so67736392wic.1 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:05:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:references:from :mime-version:in-reply-to:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=ydgPBDYgHsvNNx3comaSNFNV2Mo2CDPCdpW9IXC1GaU=; b=QlYp47V/RHTqkqCtTXMHgaN5jCWePRK9Ps0CZqUEfW84D/WGO9//hA/AeQhGHqdj5g KNgy+IC6jYBuAPnLnq7OFPx/9lAlldexjbph2JE5FxxOeBUePlKzhukUk5S9quDlIVdb 1My7AIlfRTqldV9fl9/HhoNjvky2Q+q3ExR2h0bSjWgtzNaGVxOIQ+69VDZpVd1WSrjR SgEPUcA1bVgKZfMe+Ty8k2IYPSaAIIZDz0GUDAgyrh/eU0dLuluoqmxDacGvSXJ2S9N1 55w4Rv6aH/0FPpAxYY2Yi8QNUWmlHNshavinsaCDDBRw0/OUlyFN9a4bxHktyJCSNkkt lIvQ== X-Received: by 10.180.105.165 with SMTP id gn5mr30636654wib.20.1439798714396; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.18.98.74] ([193.57.185.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id go5sm15569799wib.5.2015.08.17.01.05.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A380B06C-A538-4AB6-B613-EA6BCB77FB3B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> From: Damien Saucez Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:50:39 +0200 To: "farinacci@gmail.com" X-Mailer: iPod touch Mail (12H321) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:05:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail-A380B06C-A538-4AB6-B613-EA6BCB77FB3B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perfect! Damien Saucez=20 > On 16 Aug 2015, at 00:03, farinacci@gmail.com wrote: >=20 > The logic follows like this: >=20 > If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support is req= uired. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch subnets. If y= ou stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If broadcast frame s= upport is needed, then multicast support on the overlay is needed.=20 >=20 > And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, homene= t, or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required.=20 >=20 > Dino >=20 >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez wrot= e: >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in= all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypoth= etical requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new ver= sion ? >>=20 >> Damien Saucez=20 >>=20 >>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" wrote: >>> > >>> > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are mo= ving. There are severl military applications for this use-case. >>>=20 >>> Agree >>>=20 >>> Stig >>>=20 >>> > >>> > Dino >>> > >>> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to= do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobil= ity. >>> > > >>> > > Stig >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail-A380B06C-A538-4AB6-B613-EA6BCB77FB3B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Perfect!

Dami= en Saucez 



On 16 Aug 2015, at 00:0= 3, farinacci@gmail.com wrote:
=
The logic follows like= this:

If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, t= hen L2 overlay support is required. If L2 overlay support is required, then y= ou must stretch subnets. If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is r= equired. If broadcast frame support is needed, then multicast support on the= overlay is needed. 

And if L2 overlays are go= ing to be supported in cloud environments, homenet, or in containers, then N= AT-traversal support is required. 

Dino
<= div>
On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I understand t= hat multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in all use cases, b= ut the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothetical requiremen= ts or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new version ?
=
Damien Saucez 

On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, S= tig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wr= ote:


On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are mov= ing. There are severl military applications for this use-case.

Agree

Stig

>
> Dino
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want t= o do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobi= lity.
> >
> > Stig
>

____________________= ___________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman= /listinfo/lisp
= --Apple-Mail-A380B06C-A538-4AB6-B613-EA6BCB77FB3B-- From nobody Mon Aug 17 05:47:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAD21B2D54 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 05:47:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_91=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVNPQRsGRkLY for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 05:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0601.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::601]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 747EA1B2D52 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 05:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DB4PR06MB0912.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.250.144) by DB4PR06MB189.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.155.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.231.21; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:46:48 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.250.141) by DB4PR06MB0912.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.250.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.231.21; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:46:47 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.250.141]) by DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.250.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0231.024; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:46:47 +0000 From: Sharon Barkai To: "farinacci@gmail.com" Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Use Cases Thread-Index: AQHQ0u/B0PocOJ4G70qe3fIPBIUe2p4F1cGAgAAB/wCAAAYlAIACwo6AgAAAtYCAAAX1AIADDKwAgAHyuwCAAokqeA== Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:46:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> , <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Sharon@Contextream.com; x-originating-ip: [98.248.50.149] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB0912; 5:Xb+h2laXKUzBD6ibXYp1VUlIUnyAJ0X6fQ034DBLulr1dNruOKffYoXg5QOrtsoi6th5Rs0PunkXU+hcqQqWa9AOulkURXs6gn0Tf1Ddx6NyMjT1VvNGDL7jvqKP2cTTqj8djsQnWen9rbhPzz6Seg==; 24:emx9ejF5gfmCTsvedm+jMLZPvuvRCMhEuEYsVRpovamW8T82dc0x55ZnRKfmQ0Cvt1mAsEbcE+KAXW+GCbOrEoC6hKgdHbMDbYs+sg6+M2o=; 20:ktB2WxJEXZ2MWnh7xQGYm27K4h/DCeNTV4351/1UGPb4eE54f6/ygkcvFa6NT4uV7sSznvNE/ConKn7bN/8ArQ== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(42139001); SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(42139001); SRVR:DB4PR06MB189; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001); SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; x-forefront-prvs: 0671F32598 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(24454002)(189002)(199003)(377454003)(68736005)(106356001)(2351001)(1411001)(16236675004)(80792005)(105586002)(5002640100001)(64706001)(2501003)(36756003)(46102003)(33656002)(2950100001)(15975445007)(40100003)(102836002)(2900100001)(19580405001)(77156002)(10400500002)(106116001)(19617315012)(62966003)(122556002)(77096005)(97736004)(5001830100001)(4001540100001)(110136002)(5001860100001)(5001960100002)(81156007)(66066001)(82746002)(50986999)(76176999)(2656002)(83716003)(101416001)(54356999)(189998001)(86362001)(87936001)(92566002)(19580395003)(93886004)(5001920100001)(7059030)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; H:DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: Contextream.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A4711991B4F240059A4D7E42A6988B0EContextreamcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Aug 2015 12:46:47.0078 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 31ea6a41-1b19-4e44-95ed-6c61c89a1582 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB0912 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB189; 2:jzfGIYheGXpusoq9lkrXFzLQeEzMzWhABvoK5xHrC2gfaksGdDneJfCgPU9LfsBFTcoB7LlEcZ6qGIVTuzZ3OFKoJRhzdoTczgD9hxLgo73MbMnEIvg94+E0Wacp2Q5FDykrrIjyEkij6LiP8dvR98zHyXjsY7RHU+GuI+A6Vcg=; 3:SZYRc60wdE4JPSX6+2iuYV28OAdulhXxcOAwx9Piza3KbisLWbV3Hcoj6GZAYQogXD1MT2SBoEVEHJLRouuebFw+Pxgq0pgPiNlZL7Qyz5wny8Sgsm2UADWmLdylQNRLKfmF9s4NDBEWvf7wlu9n1/2wUGvhwYXraGEuj/AIL7I=; 25:Gn2mguzsSO/uBJP9w6oV1kJcDbdeXFLYv/+ZWUmIpJxU0xpL/JEn4iMe9mUstoydmhDYZGQ0UGnhM0bpkK2fDdzu1lAABRtaZUqgZIPe9bo67VaCM3YOqHkZXvwuhXbPI1zPcaD8rw4gAOWXY8Tu6K76cGdl4cKeRiipSxNNK6UYwUquDxpTl7+VfHgMavOzxdxuWqiI2n5C7aFLvjGc0HT5rD92m9HCoUK7/8PxHLHKzVyOSPg4fPi9mazLrHlIW48gtqtnwqmDDXBH4P54/w==; 23:kv9r5nrgy0qC0O8UKz4+jVtNq5hAire7fyFha6qToWOH/po8bKkuxl0DGDY//Nst4xzGzuVH4+6rz4+EUugCAQYBH1JWkt9cz85VWQXWglDH54meRQXySgGvSmspTp0XJH3lr5blvDPdLOqBD4kYjjDStLZiuOW2NmkYdUsjq9XclWjSZjSq/wTc0u3GQKI2 X-OriginatorOrg: Contextream.com Archived-At: Cc: Sharon Barkai , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:47:11 -0000 --_000_A4711991B4F240059A4D7E42A6988B0EContextreamcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable would also say that if we are to help implement overlays with the lisp map= ping architecture, then we could expect any overlay aggregation node to sub= scribe to any traffic identifiers/classifiers - unicast, multicast.g, taps, chain.index.. and to the mappings them selves Doesn't mean they get it, may be other policies in place, both in the mappi= ng and in the itr, but xtr can subscribe by essence of overlays - logical n= ot topological connectionless traffic forwarding over IP. --szb On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:03 PM, "farinacci@gmail.com" > wrote: The logic follows like this: If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support is requ= ired. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch subnets. If = you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If broadcast fram= e support is needed, then multicast support on the overlay is needed. And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, homenet= , or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required. Dino On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez > wrote: Hello, I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in a= ll use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothe= tical requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new ver= sion ? Damien Saucez On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas > wrote: On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" > wrote: > > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are movin= g. There are severl military applications for this use-case. Agree Stig > > Dino > > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas > wrote: > > > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want to do= multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes mobilit= y. > > > > Stig > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --_000_A4711991B4F240059A4D7E42A6988B0EContextreamcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
would also say that if we are to help implement  overlays with th= e lisp mapping architecture, then we could expect any overlay aggregation n= ode to subscribe to any traffic identifiers/classifiers 
- unicast, multicast.g, taps, chain.index.. and to the mappings them s= elves

Doesn't mean they get it, may be other policies in place, both in the = mapping and in the itr, but xtr can subscribe by essence of overlays - logi= cal not topological connectionless traffic forwarding over IP.

--szb

On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:03 PM, "f= arinacci@gmail.com" <far= inacci@gmail.com> wrote:

The logic follows like this:

If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support is= required. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch subnets= . If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If broadcast= frame support is needed, then multicast support on the overlay is needed. 

And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, ho= menet, or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required. 

Dino

On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially required= in all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. A= re they hypothetical requirements or real demand from the market targeted b= y LISP, new version ?

Damien Saucez 

On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:


On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are mo= ving. There are severl military applications for this use-case.

Agree

Stig

>
> Dino
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that want= to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also includes m= obility.
> >
> > Stig
>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
--_000_A4711991B4F240059A4D7E42A6988B0EContextreamcom_-- From nobody Mon Aug 17 09:42:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B225B1A00BD for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_91=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eDha1Y6xBbcU for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3F91A00C0 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pawq9 with SMTP id q9so14330128paw.3 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=q2egy1yliPhPxuhJjx8Bb7u5ccISfulrC9e3yQ1zyqY=; b=iPaO2dp+xoBQCEkIWzErlYUXGqBM96yYf6LJ1n3JhK+YnbPp5DfEvdOKXa/gPpUrNo bEv9x3tC2uBX+cZTFF9bHz+Y89vGQp8P9t78vlL8V2v24dc6nEGArivAt45ARaP3JPP9 8QJfynJ6mWwz13UnyIplqtXGpwkOfCHktidvodery41XnWShhPOWyqAUhTuSAxjqwzFu tOuxUFsxQ8FsnFsPQb/jhJINBLyWRZqdwwSU9yAcUx6avLZ4VLMvIUb0z+vt0I8jlnHI iweQspajnsb43wWVlf0Yi5+ZefJB4hmdWw9EysRhNRlxWb1/MsMpe67JKED6dH2Gcpvw +DPA== X-Received: by 10.68.116.109 with SMTP id jv13mr4162377pbb.137.1439829715434; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.39.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nj9sm15235068pdb.77.2015.08.17.09.41.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:41:58 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> To: Sharon Barkai X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Sharon Barkai , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:42:01 -0000 > would also say that if we are to help implement overlays with the = lisp mapping architecture, then we could expect any overlay aggregation = node to subscribe to any traffic identifiers/classifiers=20 > - unicast, multicast.g, taps, chain.index.. and to the mappings them = selves Yes, definitely agree. And the lisp-subscription ID reflects that. Note to WG, this draft is about to be published soon. > Doesn't mean they get it, may be other policies in place, both in the = mapping and in the itr, but xtr can subscribe by essence of overlays - = logical not topological connectionless traffic forwarding over IP. Right.=20 Dino >=20 > --szb >=20 > On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:03 PM, "farinacci@gmail.com" = wrote: >=20 >> The logic follows like this: >>=20 >> If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support = is required. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch = subnets. If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If = broadcast frame support is needed, then multicast support on the overlay = is needed.=20 >>=20 >> And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, = homenet, or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required.=20 >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez = wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello, >>>=20 >>> I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially = required in all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. = Are they hypothetical requirements or real demand from the market = targeted by LISP, new version ? >>>=20 >>> Damien Saucez=20 >>>=20 >>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas wrote: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" = wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers = are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case. >>>>=20 >>>> Agree >>>>=20 >>>> Stig >>>>=20 >>>> > >>>> > Dino >>>> > >>>> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas = wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that = want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also = includes mobility. >>>> > > >>>> > > Stig >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Aug 17 13:44:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976A11A1BAC for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O60iHq5YC1DT for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 510CB1A1BA3 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:44:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1416; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439844287; x=1441053887; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=YUsLaK3m0mGHiIeZCcPWPMQpmR6UBqvh1qNnlZ9VLdQ=; b=XaGPuSS2zN9SfwFyj562vL8SycqPCpgczq1D8znwOr0c5Kx1NE9M6fCJ WdZHCRNBME0uG3sKXkxjS9I41jYSDP9w4EpSvlxChsqMejBa+qUtUx1TP AQv/Xo9eAFO2vGT/Vu2xbwGu1czzn0en8KnshfEAi2Adcc6YI/Kp2Gkxz Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CIAgAwR9JV/5tdJa1dgxtUaQa9ZwEJgWwKhXkCgTE4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEDAQEBARpRCwULAgEIDjgnCyUCBA4FiCYIDdEKAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUBItShFYzB4MYgRQFlR0BhQOHaIFKhCuQS4NnJoN9cYFIgQQBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,697,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="179449476" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2015 20:44:46 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7HKik7P020946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:44:46 GMT Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:44:45 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (173.37.183.79) by xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:44:45 -0500 Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.6]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:44:45 -0500 From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" To: Luigi Iannone Thread-Topic: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption Thread-Index: AQHQ2S2M57+DzM1q70SXyjdYTaFicw== Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: <87504C9E-E66A-4747-B3F0-DB3AA639C37B@cisco.com> References: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> In-Reply-To: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list , Joel Halpern Direct Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:44:48 -0000 I approve of the adoption of this document. -D On Aug 9, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, >=20 > The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01]=20 > asked for WG adoption. >=20 > This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption. > The call ends on August 24th 2015. >=20 > Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of approval o= r disapproval. >=20 > Recall that: >=20 > - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is expe= cted to=20 > modify the document=92s content until there is WG consensus that the co= ntent is solid. =20 > Therefore, please don=92t oppose adoption just because you want to see = changes to its content. >=20 > - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your r= easons why,=20 > and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues an= d we can=20 > begin a dialog about how best to address them. > =20 > = =20 > Luigi and Joel > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Thu Aug 20 04:33:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F1C1A1B9E for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:33:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ZbdE3l08aEu for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.edu [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E68A1A0127 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw-3.ac.upc.es (gw-3.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.9]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7K9YfCD012062; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:34:42 +0200 Received: from [10.61.196.233] (unknown [173.38.220.47]) by gw-3.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95BF5168; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:33:12 +0200 (CEST) To: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list References: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> From: Lori Jakab Organization: LISPmob Message-ID: <55D5BAF9.8020202@lispmob.org> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:33:13 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:33:18 -0000 On 8/10/15 12:57 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, > > The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01] > asked for WG adoption. I support WG adoption of this document. -Lori > > This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption. > The call ends on August 24th 2015. > > Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of approval > or disapproval. > > Recall that: > > - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is > expected to > modify the documents content until there is WG consensus that the > content is solid. > Therefore, please dont oppose adoption just because you want to see > changes to its content. > > - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state your > reasons why, > and explain what it would take to address your concerns. > > - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues > and we can > begin a dialog about how best to address them. > > > > Luigi and Joel From nobody Thu Aug 20 10:05:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9741A00EA for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nOYHRiIhvQZ6 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD1B31A00E6 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440090305; x=1441299905; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=p2gG2KgcDpmLf+aus3tGjoLEO314rDlP8Cpd+O83qgQ=; b=YO6MXZy8sK/tueGL41kpqV934pzsR1nZxYKXiKsIHz/X51hRn7Q4oVcY fEBTQ0aHPWkmaDS1Oc+fbBjfleYy7Q99x2EvZD6TE2Y7lD+ycOp8yMWV0 jf4zgzrlx9iSxbj0tAJjrILcLtPHH80ii6G9pwJ5QfVMBAcvwn6F9DInn k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CqAgBwB9ZV/5tdJa1dgxtUaQaDH7oyAQmBbQEJhXsCHIEbOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEJAEBBAEBARoGSwsQAgEIBAoxAwICAiULFBECBA4FiC4NujGWCQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEi1OFBgQHgmkvgRQFkheDEgGFBIdqgUqELpBag2kmg31xgUiBBAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,715,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="25664354" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2015 17:05:05 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7KH5411026392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:05:04 GMT Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:05:04 -0500 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (173.37.183.85) by xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:05:04 -0500 Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.202]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:05:03 -0500 From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" To: Luigi Iannone Thread-Topic: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption Thread-Index: AQHQ0u5eYnJvGOib0kWf0GnU5YHbZZ4VgqqA Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: <8EFD5475-342B-4BF3-80A3-CD4224C209DA@cisco.com> References: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> In-Reply-To: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.26] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8EFD5475342B4BF380A3CD4224C209DAciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:05:07 -0000 --_000_8EFD5475342B4BF380A3CD4224C209DAciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QXBwcm92ZS9zdXBwb3J0DQoNCi12DQoNCk9uIEF1ZyA5LCAyMDE1LCBhdCAyOjU3IFBNLCBMdWln aSBJYW5ub25lIDxnZ3hAZ2lnaXgubmV0PG1haWx0bzpnZ3hAZ2lnaXgubmV0Pj4gd3JvdGU6DQoN CkhpIEFsbCwNCg0KVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGRyYWZ0LWVybWFnYW4tbGlz cC15YW5nLTAxLnR4dA0KW2h0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1lcm1hZ2Fu LWxpc3AteWFuZy0wMV0NCmFza2VkIGZvciBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbi4NCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGJl Z2lucyB0aGUgdHdvIHdlZWtzIGNhbGwgZm9yIFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uLg0KVGhlIGNhbGwgZW5kcyBv biAgQXVndXN0IDI0dGggMjAxNS4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhlIExJU1AgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0IHdpdGggYW55IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgYXBwcm92YWwgb3IgZGlzYXBwcm92YWwuDQoN ClJlY2FsbCB0aGF0Og0KDQotIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IFdHIExhc3QgQ2FsbC4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50 IGlzIG5vdCBmaW5hbCwgYW5kIHRoZSBXRyBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0bw0KICBtb2RpZnkgdGhlIGRv Y3VtZW504oCZcyBjb250ZW50IHVudGlsIHRoZXJlIGlzIFdHIGNvbnNlbnN1cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBj b250ZW50IGlzIHNvbGlkLg0KICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIHBsZWFzZSBkb27igJl0IG9wcG9zZSBhZG9w dGlvbiBqdXN0IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gc2VlIGNoYW5nZXMgdG8gaXRzIGNvbnRlbnQu DQoNCi0gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgb2JqZWN0aW9ucyB0byBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQs IHBsZWFzZSBzdGF0ZSB5b3VyIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5LA0KICBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbiB3aGF0IGl0IHdv dWxkIHRha2UgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm5zLg0KDQotIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGlzc3Vl cyB3aXRoIHRoZSBjb250ZW50LCBieSBhbGwgbWVhbnMgcmFpc2UgdGhvc2UgaXNzdWVzIGFuZCB3 ZSBjYW4NCiAgYmVnaW4gYSBkaWFsb2cgYWJvdXQgaG93IGJlc3QgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGVtLg0K DQoNCkx1aWdpIGFuZCBKb2VsDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fXw0KbGlzcCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCmxpc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmxpc3BA aWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpc3ANCg0K --_000_8EFD5475342B4BF380A3CD4224C209DAciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsiIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KQXBwcm92ZS9zdXBwb3J0DQo8ZGl2 IGNsYXNzPSIiPjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tdjwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj48YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSIiPg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUg dHlwZT0iY2l0ZSIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPk9uIEF1ZyA5LCAyMDE1LCBhdCAy OjU3IFBNLCBMdWlnaSBJYW5ub25lICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86Z2d4QGdpZ2l4Lm5ldCIg Y2xhc3M9IiI+Z2d4QGdpZ2l4Lm5ldDwvYT4mZ3Q7IHdyb3RlOjwvZGl2Pg0KPGJyIGNsYXNzPSJB cHBsZS1pbnRlcmNoYW5nZS1uZXdsaW5lIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJ3 b3JkLXdyYXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1s aW5lLWJyZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsiIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4N CjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiIgc3R5bGU9IndvcmQtd3JhcDogYnJlYWstd29yZDsgLXdlYmtpdC1uYnNw LW1vZGU6IHNwYWNlOyAtd2Via2l0LWxpbmUtYnJlYWs6IGFmdGVyLXdoaXRlLXNwYWNlOyI+DQo8 ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPkhpIEFsbCw8YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQo8YnIgY2xhc3M9IiI+DQpUaGUgYXV0 aG9ycyBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgZHJhZnQtZXJtYWdhbi1saXNwLXlhbmctMDEudHh0PGJyIGNs YXNzPSIiPg0KWzxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1lcm1h Z2FuLWxpc3AteWFuZy0wMSIgY2xhc3M9IiI+aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2Ry YWZ0LWVybWFnYW4tbGlzcC15YW5nLTAxPC9hPl0mbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+ YXNrZWQgZm9yIFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uLjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NClRoaXMg bWVzc2FnZSBiZWdpbnMgdGhlIHR3byB3ZWVrcyBjYWxsIGZvciBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbi48YnIgY2xh c3M9IiI+DQpUaGUgY2FsbCBlbmRzIG9uICZuYnNwO0F1Z3VzdCAyNHRoIDIwMTUuPGJyIGNsYXNz PSIiPg0KPGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhlIExJU1AgbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0IHdpdGggYW55IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgYXBwcm92YWwgb3IgZGlzYXBwcm92YWwuPGJyIGNs YXNzPSIiPg0KPGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KUmVjYWxsIHRoYXQ6PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGJyIGNs YXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPi0gVGhpcyBpcyBub3QgV0cgTGFzdCBDYWxs LiBUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgbm90IGZpbmFsLCBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRvJm5i c3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPiZuYnNwOyBtb2RpZnkgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW504oCZcyBj b250ZW50IHVudGlsIHRoZXJlIGlzIFdHIGNvbnNlbnN1cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBjb250ZW50Jm5ic3A7 aXMgc29saWQuICZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4mbmJzcDsgVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBw bGVhc2UgZG9u4oCZdCBvcHBvc2UgYWRvcHRpb24ganVzdCBiZWNhdXNlIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHNl ZSBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIGl0cyBjb250ZW50LjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwv ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4tIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIG9iamVjdGlvbnMgdG8gYWRvcHRpb24g b2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBwbGVhc2Ugc3RhdGUgeW91ciByZWFzb25zIHdoeSwmbmJzcDs8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+Jm5ic3A7IGFuZCBleHBsYWluIHdoYXQgaXQgd291bGQgdGFrZSB0 byBhZGRyZXNzIHlvdXIgY29uY2VybnMuPGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSIiPi0gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgaXNzdWVzIHdpdGggdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQs IGJ5IGFsbCBtZWFucyByYWlzZSB0aG9zZSBpc3N1ZXMgYW5kIHdlIGNhbiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdiBjbGFzcz0iIj4mbmJzcDsgYmVnaW4gYSBkaWFsb2cgYWJvdXQgaG93IGJlc3QgdG8gYWRk cmVzcyB0aGVtLjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJz cDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IiI+Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsg Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAm bmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJz cDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw OyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IGNs YXNzPSIiPkx1aWdpIGFuZCBKb2VsPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQpfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXzxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4N Cmxpc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmxpc3BAaWV0 Zi5vcmciIGNsYXNzPSIiPmxpc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+PGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9saXNwPGJyIGNsYXNzPSIiPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8 L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxiciBjbGFzcz0iIj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9o dG1sPg0K --_000_8EFD5475342B4BF380A3CD4224C209DAciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Aug 24 05:50:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132881B349E; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 05:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Avdsf7k4xH7C; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8421B3461; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150824125020.20038.99463.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 05:50:20 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:50:22 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : LISP EID Block Management Guidelines Authors : Luigi Iannone Roger Jorgensen David Conrad Geoff Huston Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2015-08-24 Abstract: This document proposes a framework for the management of the LISP EID Prefix. The framework described relies on hierarchical distribution of the address space, granting temporary usage of sub-prefixes of such space to requesting organizations. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-mgmnt-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Aug 25 01:47:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535A41AC41A for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6YN57nmVSPIr for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8141B2B34 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so7898903wid.0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=1T8NDHsuQ3phFjv8og6o8SSdiQYUOxxfnu14BVgMhO4=; b=Y5LVn5Ki+XLEwBMQMciaAptC69AWRw2sfv6UOAH1lUw/ku79pX1ceUzVfNcPlTvxcR nj0cr13gkB3ckV7s25PrqsUjQ0c8kntyPK+RNN9G3BDdvlgZ4icT0cA4QWh09YyRSb5J dTJKDR8Diabun2D8hYuu0vVkiRCE1PBsvQ8c5XFV1zKD2MJ3yQc9WBuli2Wzor2QQ9v9 o/+Y5E3nkUahI24sNZQRoYd2a8Z4W9xS6dCWgOx96VyhplU5tG6hQpm4c8ejK3RBd3TH 3R/jfVKwh/ejhXYa5S8pJob+sgP/CmQKmVcNiaAjoJaAXy8dQmwvU+7ohno77bSQd7nn P3QA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnEcs5b8Z4HHM0qjK1BU1lTi4gd3uslMIqoR7D39FW4yObZbxyTln4e82z2O6AXrdMfyj2n X-Received: by 10.194.95.41 with SMTP id dh9mr48307314wjb.55.1440492423225; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id jr5sm26997267wjc.14.2015.08.25.01.47.01 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3271CE9F-58D0-480E-8A17-F624385F8B80" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:47:40 +0200 Message-Id: References: <28B2A96D-9AC2-4DC9-872A-E7449AB090C9@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt - Call for WG Adoption X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:47:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3271CE9F-58D0-480E-8A17-F624385F8B80 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi All, the two weeks Call for WG Adoption for draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt is = now over. =46rom the exchange on the mailing list we gather that there is = consensus in adopting this document. Authors are invited to submit a renamed document at their earliest = convenience. All WG members who did not read the document are invited to do so and = send feedback to the authors. Thanks all for the work done. ciao Luigi, Joel=20 > On 09 Aug 2015, at 23:57, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > The authors of the document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01 = ]=20 > asked for WG adoption. >=20 > This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption. > The call ends on August 24th 2015. >=20 > Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of = approval or disapproval. >=20 > Recall that: >=20 > - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG is = expected to=20 > modify the document=E2=80=99s content until there is WG consensus = that the content is solid. =20 > Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t oppose adoption just because you = want to see changes to its content. >=20 > - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please state = your reasons why,=20 > and explain what it would take to address your concerns. >=20 > - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those issues = and we can=20 > begin a dialog about how best to address them. > =20 > = =20 > Luigi and Joel --Apple-Mail=_3271CE9F-58D0-480E-8A17-F624385F8B80 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi All,

the= two weeks Call for WG Adoption for draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt is = now over.

=46rom= the exchange on the mailing list we gather that there is consensus in = adopting this document.

Authors are invited to submit a renamed document at their = earliest convenience.

All WG members who did not read the document are invited to = do so and send feedback to the authors.

Thanks all for the work done.

ciao

Luigi, = Joel 

On 09 Aug 2015, at 23:57, Luigi = Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:

Hi All,

The authors of the = document draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01.txt
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ermagan-lisp-yang-01]&nbs= p;
asked for WG adoption.

This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption.
The call ends on  August 24th 2015.

Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements = of approval or disapproval.

Recall that:

- This is not WG Last = Call. The document is not final, and the WG is expected = to 
  modify the document=E2=80=99s = content until there is WG consensus that the content is solid. =  
  Therefore, please don=E2=80=99t = oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its content.

- If you have objections = to adoption of the document, please state your reasons = why, 
  and explain what it would take to = address your concerns.

- If you have issues with the content, by all means raise = those issues and we can 
  begin a dialog = about how best to address them.
      =                 
                =                     =                     =                     =                     =         
Luigi and = Joel

= --Apple-Mail=_3271CE9F-58D0-480E-8A17-F624385F8B80-- From nobody Tue Aug 25 02:01:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E99D1B2BDD for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JJ9Qi71bYNVs for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AC591B2B19 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wijp15 with SMTP id p15so8674122wij.0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=hnmbKE8iuLCIbGkc1SkaD5O/2IesaNweMknZIl1FfFM=; b=jA1IRN2WTNoTnifV4CHfmQCUrPJ4U8dXiE5L73U4kPR2ieJ8VxV84J+u1zCBW9y6y/ 4jXB1V/otGwNoNfCQhhhByZz3kGA+KL9R81sDoANYHgT7cycrdbkah0rFGWfNIJtYkhr Xrth1kI8CLayF9D/WX9bRDfF8V9dWbvf2ZqwLajRVMKmV32CJRKMoFYXsQCKMVsq09xF Xz3WZPggA7t46pmAcM2D9KRP9y8yI1h4n0gZf+R7GeGcF43jAyntjmNgY8Fvcj36UvBF sVCVi36eP45rDlGRhC67cpdCsAKKtZktt/up4zBZjyk/VIV9U+LkQS5VMPl8/zPgsH7P yoEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3iGV2jsorTt5Tts/7KnEG7jeR52sydzyu4vC3oiyOOWr5+9LApL3key61L8XVD67GLGBj X-Received: by 10.180.99.5 with SMTP id em5mr2932857wib.43.1440493305728; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mc18sm1560428wic.23.2015.08.25.02.01.43 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:02:22 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net> References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:01:49 -0000 Hi All, Thanks from the reply so far. What I gather is that there is interest in extending the LISP overlay = model to support other data-planes. What remain unclear is what those data-planes should be.=20 Note that it is impossible to cover all existing data-planes. Would be helpful if the group gives a clearer direction by suggesting a = set encaps to add support for. (this include as well the willingness to directly contribute to the = work) ciao L. > On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:05, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where=20 > by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped=20 > on each other. > However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications > allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >=20 > In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =E2=80=9Cmap assisted = overlays=E2=80=9D > more work is needed. >=20 > In this context the WG should also decide whether just an = extended/enhanced > data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly = larger and=20 > allow as well to support multiple headers type? > Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG=20 > (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >=20 > Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay = model > in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane = already allows? > And what should be the scope? >=20 > Joel & Luigi >=20 From nobody Tue Aug 25 02:07:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F22F1A7014 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8F4ykXZjxA_S for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D20D01ACD05 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so8442314wic.1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=LHanSk5b5xLUyF2sQ+CQdjNN1rwXd8QPuuAJVv1i1/M=; b=Mv6ZyHLjrdOnjEoINrJ60rubVdUW4PV3x+/8uI3rr+wDG/SRr8wsg5cwZocbaCCUX/ rtCx701KcWbD8HLxVbXRLdCuxNiF/ZcyTNNMCBsjQjJ+ZMvFhaUIPVwyEL8TT0TnrvFn qAR4IrEYdsrYJGXSRhGlexu1ftpvt76cr20ZzttqHOr2DriTYrbwN8b7VVbUand3ivAL HdXunaZ9RC4B5R7HCj3ViaHa0OnOSQkrCnNcm2Jf8HxZtyatPDhTbuYfrMcoUSSM/bf8 +hVE08oaDEw5YLMHV5GzLZOfeNiYpNgM2rzgU/wfSR0w3eQhQ5evvvlgPPV+2dXcTtyI AsCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnd3sHmWKUaXIuAmDGKV1bNY8exfrSDrlDu4QlFWdoCmjP0W4uoayA7JA8msO2X11lhgz+8 X-Received: by 10.194.133.73 with SMTP id pa9mr48583007wjb.148.1440493633549; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ho10sm26996019wjb.39.2015.08.25.02.07.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:07:51 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> References: To: LISP mailing list list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:07:16 -0000 Folks, so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that = people are not interested in moving LISP to ST? L. > On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time = for the WG=20 > to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on = the core > protocol technology.=20 >=20 > LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by = experimental work=20 > documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so = far.=20 > That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and = benefits=20 > in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. >=20 > It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability = aspects, > focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work > on standard track.=20 >=20 > If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to = re-work=20 > the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to = scalability, > and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so = far. >=20 > Would be the WG in favour of such direction? >=20 > Joel & Luigi From nobody Tue Aug 25 02:11:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F871B2D1B for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:11:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_91=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9uOi4NkytGn6 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4D211B2D1A for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so8535711wid.0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=PugXT0VDq31H6moBeZCG+p3AWC5CHEC2RZjU1tsbC0o=; b=hxYHf3ZHT+5TomJAY2WXeAKA1Q8C2G3J+FAAdGohKde7WuqqVku3F34tvsBTuP7Pbs ddUe/5NGbXUtSeXeK5k3AXwuxiSfQx+qnbhbYMmezn+fRz9YXGeVwZlF6hB+2PC/jlsE sTVRS7XhPB8dFX5PKOQq8ZFqKcHTpD2FbNUoTs993ezGkT6tx2vxLVJVYJoqENTHWZuF iDRpyYJRN+2/7FsXxg9mTWUeIBSP680kZ+dUCsWX0+XNEA405b6xan9PUpNRI1Tl2BVv YK911BuSsdlF66CrSE9KZkk4JIxizr4ZJzMWDfW/SXFB9TCm08LP2oI6bS/1OjLI2vy9 nu2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnq/lNcoSpYIEegLiR3k0H3rEkOK2Bx125y2mIh/4SkI/fj4JcmlorECiTL29j+40pn92tR X-Received: by 10.180.219.101 with SMTP id pn5mr2864894wic.89.1440493880528; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j2sm27038892wjq.5.2015.08.25.02.11.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:11:58 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Sharon Barkai , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:11:23 -0000 > On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:41, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 >> would also say that if we are to help implement overlays with the = lisp mapping architecture, then we could expect any overlay aggregation = node to subscribe to any traffic identifiers/classifiers=20 >> - unicast, multicast.g, taps, chain.index.. and to the mappings them = selves >=20 > Yes, definitely agree. And the lisp-subscription ID reflects that. >=20 > Note to WG, this draft is about to be published soon. If this is something that will help the rechartering discussion it would = be helpful either to publish the draft soon or to sketch by mail what a = lisp-subscription ID is. L. >=20 >> Doesn't mean they get it, may be other policies in place, both in the = mapping and in the itr, but xtr can subscribe by essence of overlays - = logical not topological connectionless traffic forwarding over IP. >=20 > Right.=20 >=20 > Dino >=20 >>=20 >> --szb >>=20 >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:03 PM, "farinacci@gmail.com" = wrote: >>=20 >>> The logic follows like this: >>>=20 >>> If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support = is required. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch = subnets. If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If = broadcast frame support is needed, then multicast support on the overlay = is needed.=20 >>>=20 >>> And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, = homenet, or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required.=20 >>>=20 >>> Dino >>>=20 >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Hello, >>>>=20 >>>> I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially = required in all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. = Are they hypothetical requirements or real demand from the market = targeted by LISP, new version ? >>>>=20 >>>> Damien Saucez=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" = wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers = are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Agree >>>>>=20 >>>>> Stig >>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Dino >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas = wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that = want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also = includes mobility. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Stig >>>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 02:14:20 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4691A90EC for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:14:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEjeQajnZcXU for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53D2A1A8A4F for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicne3 with SMTP id ne3so8657965wic.0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=OLsDZFrT0R6dRvyYaIPANc3NnGr7uL00H3X6bzDIl9Q=; b=Yi4DBmnIIFyTv/w7EHdhJoTN9wOzmlJYI7eRt0SUHL74oeoJ8q+xvUQIsVr99uHOzH 6CvSJ6zj9T0gj3OykKPFowQ2mvuszSCYCg17nuQM74Wn+J19Db+BqcBiGF7jgAHfDfMV bLIqML+rBFyvcaOnWsEdgBMdVSYtqAilNKoUFgryYEUgD7jZ8vdtK3LlAExOfiGr25PP tsUmGlS5k+PsWvDo2rMpRSU6o7unuTbYp/fOWQor6QvhcN9SpV9XCR51iCjnX/u5lOqH bOmI+a/TxM5/aiLjHBQFZqCV5QooBEPJLRpMCf2XdHi+CjOY27YeJZLQje8VR0BCu4+T Aj7g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTu2GCFDB4CnKyUP8VwXVOirwnY9P3++m+QpP7/Gh/ltnVS54BDYQAB44wjaXPZOkn6viE X-Received: by 10.180.108.103 with SMTP id hj7mr3013049wib.11.1440494055081; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:5dc6:371c:a6f1:e37b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r19sm1642617wib.7.2015.08.25.02.14.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9B1B4424-19E9-4445-B855-2283088F8D62" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:14:53 +0200 Message-Id: <79C91048-2FD5-4DE7-9FBD-381E8489C9AF@gigix.net> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> To: farinacci@gmail.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:14:18 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9B1B4424-19E9-4445-B855-2283088F8D62 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dino, what you write make sense, but let me invite the WG to discuss more on = the first _IF_ of your logic: =E2=80=9Cif NVO3 =E2=80=A6". As I pointed out in another mail, we need more discussion on what we are = going to support. We cannot write a charter that states =E2=80=9CLISP will support NVO3 = use-cases=E2=80=9D. L. > On 16 Aug 2015, at 00:03, farinacci@gmail.com wrote: >=20 > The logic follows like this: >=20 > If NVo3 is a requirement for the recharter, then L2 overlay support is = required. If L2 overlay support is required, then you must stretch = subnets. If you stretch subnets, broadcast frame support is required. If = broadcast frame support is needed, then multicast support on the overlay = is needed.=20 >=20 > And if L2 overlays are going to be supported in cloud environments, = homenet, or in containers, then NAT-traversal support is required.=20 >=20 > Dino >=20 > On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez > wrote: >=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> I understand that multicast and nat traversal are potentially = required in all use cases, but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. = Are they hypothetical requirements or real demand from the market = targeted by LISP, new version ? >>=20 >> Damien Saucez=20 >>=20 >> On 12 Aug 2015, at 19:44, Stig Venaas > wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" > wrote: >>> > >>> > Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers = are moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case. >>>=20 >>> Agree >>>=20 >>> Stig >>>=20 >>> > >>> > Dino >>> > >>> > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that = want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also = includes mobility. >>> > > >>> > > Stig >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp = > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail=_9B1B4424-19E9-4445-B855-2283088F8D62 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Dino,

what = you write make sense, but let me invite the WG to discuss more on the = first _IF_ of your logic: =E2=80=9Cif NVO3 =E2=80=A6".

As I pointed out in = another mail, we need more discussion on what we are going to = support.

We = cannot write a charter that states =E2=80=9CLISP will support NVO3 = use-cases=E2=80=9D.

L.

On 16 Aug 2015, at 00:03, farinacci@gmail.com = wrote:

The logic follows like this:

If NVo3 is a requirement for the = recharter, then L2 overlay support is required. If L2 overlay support is = required, then you must stretch subnets. If you stretch subnets, = broadcast frame support is required. If broadcast frame support is = needed, then multicast support on the overlay is needed. 

And if L2 overlays are = going to be supported in cloud environments, homenet, or in containers, = then NAT-traversal support is required. 

Dino

On Aug 14, 2015, at = 9:18 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I understand that = multicast and nat traversal are potentially required in all use cases, = but the "must support" sounds extreme to me. Are they hypothetical = requirements or real demand from the market targeted by LISP, new = version ?

Damien = Saucez 

On 12 Aug 2015, = at 19:44, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:


On Aug 12, 2015 10:22 AM, "Dino Farinacci" <farinacci@gmail.com>= wrote:
>
> Yes, where but multicast sources as well as multicast receivers are = moving. There are severl military applications for this use-case.

Agree

Stig

>
> Dino
>
> > On Aug 12, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> = wrote:
> >
> > I agree we need to consider multicast. There are people that = want to do multicast over LISP. Some are already doing it. This also = includes mobility.
> >
> > Stig
>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
___________________= ____________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

= --Apple-Mail=_9B1B4424-19E9-4445-B855-2283088F8D62-- From nobody Tue Aug 25 02:27:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BABD1A90B8 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:27:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dMr-4qtPd2u for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3821A038C for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw-3.ac.upc.es (gw-3.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.9]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7P7Tlt5030638; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:29:47 +0200 Received: from [10.61.162.144] (unknown [173.38.220.33]) by gw-3.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFE09B3; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:27:47 +0200 (CEST) To: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list References: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> From: Lori Jakab Organization: LISPmob Message-ID: <55DC3513.8060709@lispmob.org> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:27:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:27:54 -0000 On 8/25/15 12:07 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Folks, > > so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people are not interested in moving LISP to ST? I very much support moving LISP to ST, sorry for the delay in replying. Regards, -Lori > > L. > > >> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time for the WG >> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on the core >> protocol technology. >> >> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by experimental work >> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so far. >> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefits >> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. >> >> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspects, >> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work >> on standard track. >> >> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to re-work >> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to scalability, >> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so far. >> >> Would be the WG in favour of such direction? >> >> Joel & Luigi > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From nobody Tue Aug 25 02:32:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93F91A8A4F for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:32:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kt6_kGy1egPX for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AA421A6EE2 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:32:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,744,1432591200"; d="scan'208";a="143721548" Received: from saehrimnir.inria.fr ([138.96.206.202]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Aug 2015 11:32:22 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: <55DC3513.8060709@lispmob.org> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:32:22 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> <55DC3513.8060709@lispmob.org> To: Lori Jakab X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:32:26 -0000 Hello, I am supporting the move to ST and focus to overlay technology in this = case. Damien Saucez=20 On 25 Aug 2015, at 11:27, Lori Jakab wrote: > On 8/25/15 12:07 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Folks, >>=20 >> so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that = people are not interested in moving LISP to ST? >=20 > I very much support moving LISP to ST, sorry for the delay in = replying. >=20 > Regards, > -Lori >=20 >>=20 >> L. >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time = for the WG=20 >>> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus = on the core >>> protocol technology.=20 >>>=20 >>> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by = experimental work=20 >>> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so = far.=20 >>> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and = benefits=20 >>> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. >>>=20 >>> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability = aspects, >>> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work >>> on standard track.=20 >>>=20 >>> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to = re-work=20 >>> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to = scalability, >>> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so = far. >>>=20 >>> Would be the WG in favour of such direction? >>>=20 >>> Joel & Luigi >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 03:19:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130D01ACEE9 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:19:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yLAGxEXdVlNW for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87F331ACE4E for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdob1 with SMTP id b1so65128563pdo.2 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:19:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Vs1bKYWYINwzG3pgTDzLpe+RhRGFiC1JRw0cS7eqbPg=; b=nPIExSlIZLvFyBBaprYBkE3SjClx2gxHTDg0oFMMqnRAbuhfql2iXJm1iqhfPrWnTl 18llbgPHTeHOBI6Qs4ul/91PNd4mgSvwGjcWe1ICnsDL2/wLMAZyUDgrjE2JnWIMIHEI ku8l1VCjrN1bubQejqGIbNheYSXSmltd8ILbm71ZTzHEgCzm7bWuLiOkSTbhBYQLTMWn WqjYESEFCdJx9kqFHzjZJF3t9wrG8ht5T+oPrsfUiUO+uldYChSjY0BbBxj56jCUZZWA rSRXI+MGL7MDYHs2CTidp8ZaxQAypZz8rX98GOhzcH8W/jcTYu3ghQA7/gyIqnJInybc Rf7A== X-Received: by 10.70.109.205 with SMTP id hu13mr54522222pdb.129.1440497984254; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:c0c8:1001::38? ([2001:420:c0c8:1001::38]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fh10sm13904744pdb.95.2015.08.25.03.19.40 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Florin Coras In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:19:39 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> <55DC3513.8060709@lispmob.org> To: Damien Saucez X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:19:46 -0000 I also support the move to ST.=20 Florin > On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Damien Saucez = wrote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I am supporting the move to ST and focus to overlay technology in this = case. >=20 > Damien Saucez=20 >=20 > On 25 Aug 2015, at 11:27, Lori Jakab wrote: >=20 >> On 8/25/15 12:07 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>> Folks, >>>=20 >>> so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that = people are not interested in moving LISP to ST? >>=20 >> I very much support moving LISP to ST, sorry for the delay in = replying. >>=20 >> Regards, >> -Lori >>=20 >>>=20 >>> L. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Hi, >>>>=20 >>>> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time = for the WG=20 >>>> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus = on the core >>>> protocol technology.=20 >>>>=20 >>>> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by = experimental work=20 >>>> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced = so far.=20 >>>> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and = benefits=20 >>>> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. >>>>=20 >>>> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability = aspects, >>>> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work >>>> on standard track.=20 >>>>=20 >>>> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to = re-work=20 >>>> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to = scalability, >>>> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered = so far. >>>>=20 >>>> Would be the WG in favour of such direction? >>>>=20 >>>> Joel & Luigi >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 07:01:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3291B31AC for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bpzJfia6I1d for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AF261B3107 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1518; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440511285; x=1441720885; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qmvRY4CYowmjqwLZ3r5xhQ1QHRrzUaAUgUoATP2ctwo=; b=Dnd2nwnnHGjj14ey2WclXotv5Vr2oSoJTMjv8+8cbNldDmjySrakUt47 k9D4fPlflNVyTepqbPmGIH7Lf+bF4U0ThcVzD+Eb+QpeR7l7PLD0+w4Ug lBJqztjDnZy3VZmfGFRdpNRDETPY6FEvOOrpyRgBKBjCtBa4fLFGlF9C5 I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B5AgAKdNxV/49dJa1dgxtUab4LAQmBbQqFewKBMTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQQBAQE1NgoRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMBMGAgEBiCoNx20BAQEBAQUBAQEBARkEi1eFEReEFQEEjWCHV4xyiHWRXyaEHh4zgkwBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,746,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="23393902" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2015 14:01:24 +0000 Received: from [10.24.28.152] ([10.24.28.152]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7PE1Ot2002286 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:01:24 GMT To: lisp@ietf.org References: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> From: Fabio Maino Message-ID: <55DC7532.9090807@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:01:22 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:01:27 -0000 I support focusing on the overlay technology and associated use cases, and move the work to standard track. Fabio On 8/25/15 2:07 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Folks, > > so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people are not interested in moving LISP to ST? > > L. > > >> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time for the WG >> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on the core >> protocol technology. >> >> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by experimental work >> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so far. >> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefits >> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. >> >> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspects, >> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work >> on standard track. >> >> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to re-work >> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to scalability, >> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so far. >> >> Would be the WG in favour of such direction? >> >> Joel & Luigi > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 07:08:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7691B3098 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-LZKa5GwaDb for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52FC01B3052 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2065; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440511716; x=1441721316; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2GixSLLgiAY1d6CQbL/D43xV0rjo4d/hlaXM/6a4EKc=; b=Lf6REdPVbnh/2Nqg9Aym/+bV7ZRTppjgg1RiKuoDqW7FgsxkIkMCL0GZ AjZabsn60i+BgpyC+CX9vtXoEgXAciBh8PQtNi7fGNBetfUxi/oMYIF+D FRmJ+Cp8/qajnykMwOsoUBoXv5EEIUjIXNq3HeDeBgz3qLlbx1qXCAumR 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ChAgASdtxV/4kNJK1dgxtUaYMlumYBCYFtCoV7AoExOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEJAEBBAEBASAPAQU2ChELGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgEVMBMGAgEBiCoNslKVHgEBAQEGAQEBAQEZBIEiijWFEReCUoFDBY1gh1eHcoUAiHWRXyaEHh4zgkwBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,746,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="23406387" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2015 14:08:35 +0000 Received: from [10.24.28.152] ([10.24.28.152]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7PE8YS1016957 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:08:35 GMT To: lisp@ietf.org References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net> From: Fabio Maino Message-ID: <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:08:33 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:08:42 -0000 As an author, I certainly support inclusion of VXLAN-GPE (and its counterpart LISP-GPE) and I'll continue to contribute to that work. Given the wide availability of VXLAN in many HW and SW platforms, it may make sense to include VXLAN as well, especially for the NVO3 use cases. Note that with VXLAN-GPE, support for VXLAN will come almost implicitly. Fabio On 8/25/15 2:02 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks from the reply so far. > > What I gather is that there is interest in extending the LISP overlay model to support other data-planes. > > What remain unclear is what those data-planes should be. > Note that it is impossible to cover all existing data-planes. > > Would be helpful if the group gives a clearer direction by suggesting a set encaps to add support for. > (this include as well the willingness to directly contribute to the work) > > ciao > > L. > > >> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:05, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >> by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >> on each other. >> However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications >> allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >> >> In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined “map assisted overlays” >> more work is needed. >> >> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an extended/enhanced >> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger and >> allow as well to support multiple headers type? >> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >> (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >> >> Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay model >> in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane already allows? >> And what should be the scope? >> >> Joel & Luigi >> > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 07:48:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7EB1AD05D for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:48:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id doHr21Y0EWT6 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0619.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::619]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B49C1B2CE1 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.250.141) by DB4PR06MB0912.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.161.250.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.243.23; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:47:42 +0000 Received: from DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.250.141]) by DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.161.250.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0243.020; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:47:42 +0000 From: Sharon Barkai To: Fabio Maino Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model Thread-Index: AQHQ0u+Ixv5XRsfTYkqbfVvUGylZXp4cg6IAgABVjICAAArw3g== Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: <9DFAF652-FD9F-45A2-9FC6-22072D13AF49@Contextream.com> References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net>, <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Sharon@Contextream.com; x-originating-ip: [2601:647:4300:d1e2:411d:51:d27c:fde0] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DB4PR06MB0912; 5:bI7YhNyWLB5fWFBukgleGbknez4QEn4Cr1hynCQcRkYfeVqMsYxUBs26DMv794aSWAGShX4T2+QCBVz+XB5t05LLbKtuZa0hGvzkcKsHInX6qYHGFRb7oMAXWGKvauLPVydLhzC+G4mSMe9sq4IORw==; 24:0h8+bMUw5uUHQzc54+bN5uecB+0e7WNXe1LrCNLn1RCChSmvAoxjUERW5qiiZDgRbnjUVlnbstCePC56IjcrvRTBXAuDjXMcaWbKCglb9Qg=; 20:KAKl4HWzvaYVpUYmzpvV53zG4IFmO4iSJORJ2iqlUKOkJxJ/DkUUCX9z+O++MCXshYyJpsRTBTgtmQ2EeV7koA== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; x-forefront-prvs: 06793E740F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(24454002)(53754006)(199003)(189002)(377454003)(479174004)(77156002)(5002640100001)(110136002)(19580405001)(2950100001)(81156007)(101416001)(36756003)(77096005)(62966003)(4001540100001)(5001860100001)(80792005)(2900100001)(33656002)(19580395003)(82746002)(189998001)(97736004)(5001830100001)(68736005)(92566002)(40100003)(83716003)(2656002)(122556002)(106356001)(10400500002)(46102003)(5007970100001)(105586002)(106116001)(5004730100002)(5001960100002)(64706001)(102836002)(54356999)(76176999)(50986999)(86362001)(15975445007)(87936001)(7059030)(3826002)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DB4PR06MB0912; H:DB4PR06MB0909.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: Contextream.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Contextream.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Aug 2015 14:47:42.4098 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 31ea6a41-1b19-4e44-95ed-6c61c89a1582 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR06MB0912 Archived-At: Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:48:03 -0000 Support. --szb > On Aug 25, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Fabio Maino wrote: >=20 > As an author, I certainly support inclusion of VXLAN-GPE (and its counter= part LISP-GPE) and I'll continue to contribute to that work. >=20 > Given the wide availability of VXLAN in many HW and SW platforms, it may = make sense to include VXLAN as well, especially for the NVO3 use cases. Not= e that with VXLAN-GPE, support for VXLAN will come almost implicitly. >=20 >=20 > Fabio >=20 >=20 >> On 8/25/15 2:02 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi All, >>=20 >> Thanks from the reply so far. >>=20 >> What I gather is that there is interest in extending the LISP overlay mo= del to support other data-planes. >>=20 >> What remain unclear is what those data-planes should be. >> Note that it is impossible to cover all existing data-planes. >>=20 >> Would be helpful if the group gives a clearer direction by suggesting a = set encaps to add support for. >> (this include as well the willingness to directly contribute to the work= ) >>=20 >> ciao >>=20 >> L. >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:05, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >>> by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >>> on each other. >>> However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current specifications >>> allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >>>=20 >>> In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =93map assisted overlays= =94 >>> more work is needed. >>>=20 >>> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an extended/enha= nced >>> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly larger= and >>> allow as well to support multiple headers type? >>> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >>> (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >>>=20 >>> Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay mod= el >>> in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane alrea= dy allows? >>> And what should be the scope? >>>=20 >>> Joel & Luigi >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 08:54:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8FC1B3518 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:54:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OrCBx6aA8wSs for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A77391B350E for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B016D4A; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:54:43 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date :date:in-reply-to:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1440518081; bh=vpQ10c2AS+DD8lt30ntjo8d7+rXLTNw7HceMtf2ytqY=; b=o pG1gVRTs8h9s+D+EpKBgq/GkWK3Gqr0rgLA/3qpOiMVzsN97ZaLWzgH54lXqcGBg vhgKNoBSJ+6Ye5cTh5wWxuJBz+Zi5wPeZ45LQi3LK+7kFTzoP7XyxlQJih5j8exy Z9/x/iZYWkGUrvW/OwT6sHI104zHvpmJx5UDFre+tc= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yuRoqGohhkOh; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:54:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.32] (p83-219-180-227.snwdip.snw.at [83.219.180.227]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC09534; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:54:40 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett From: Sander Steffann In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:54:36 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <53443D5C-89A6-4311-99CE-B409ACD602B1@steffann.nl> References: To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:54:47 -0000 Hi Luigi, > It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspects, > focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work > on standard track. +1 Sander From nobody Tue Aug 25 09:15:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E841B353F for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:15:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71NybgyEIh6i for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from roura.ac.upc.es (roura.ac.upc.es [147.83.33.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832CE1B3544 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw-3.ac.upc.es (gw-3.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.9]) by roura.ac.upc.es (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7PEHpf9012544 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:17:51 +0200 Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by gw-3.ac.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 024C873A for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:15:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lbbpu9 with SMTP id pu9so103102322lbb.3 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.52.2 with SMTP id p2mr26251167lbo.8.1440519350247; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.24.73 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:15:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> References: <81BF6E49-8CAE-4A98-8C35-B44BDEE09397@gigix.net> From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:15:30 +0200 Message-ID: To: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bb3e29e8bf051e250cc7 Archived-At: Cc: Joel Halpern Direct , Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] Standard Track X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:15:56 -0000 --001a11c3bb3e29e8bf051e250cc7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Support for ST and overlay focus. Alberto On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Folks, > > so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people > are not interested in moving LISP to ST? > > L. > > > > On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time for > the WG > > to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on > the core > > protocol technology. > > > > LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by > experimental work > > documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so far. > > That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefits > > in contexts for which it has not been originally designed. > > > > It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability > aspects, > > focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work > > on standard track. > > > > If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to > re-work > > the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to > scalability, > > and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so far. > > > > Would be the WG in favour of such direction? > > > > Joel & Luigi > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > --001a11c3bb3e29e8bf051e250cc7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support for ST and overlay focus.

Albert= o

On Tue= , Aug 25, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:=
Folks,

so far only Dino replied to this thread. Should we understand that people a= re not interested in moving LISP to ST?

L.


> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:02, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As suggested by Terry Manderson during the last meeting, it is time fo= r the WG
> to think to move away from the Internet Scalability issue and focus on= the core
> protocol technology.
>
> LISP has its merits, concerning routing scalability, proved by experim= ental work
> documented in the various RFC and drafts that the WG has produced so f= ar.
> That work remains untouched. Yet, LISP provides advantages and benefit= s
> in contexts for which it has not been originally designed.
>
> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspe= cts,
> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work
> on standard track.
>
> If the WG decides to go that way, this will give the opportunity to re= -work
> the core set of RFCs defining LISP, avoiding any reference to scalabil= ity,
> and possibly enhancing the documents with the experience gathered so f= ar.
>
> Would be the WG in favour of such direction?
>
> Joel & Luigi

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

--001a11c3bb3e29e8bf051e250cc7-- From nobody Tue Aug 25 09:33:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F9E1A00D0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZt-2tXsc5vx for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E0D91A00B5 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so12514011pad.3 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:33:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VbVW2H0CruTUQyHFg3BdiZ96ul5wdhyy3ylQeL0fL5A=; b=y7M9ox0Ouj+Q2lUtStqfIH9QsqYd81ym9+926TeUJeNFd8N5uGYV/RmFuxX16WRIRk jj+yd0HGUbXR6hS8akoRlnrBSp7bgZ2eX2jJGo8tvWBuWqIgAU9D2e2eoENSyq315m6z swWtBUGITGBbPgHlCrFHhEuMVPp81Wws93SifW81mUgFVo2sGfS4r9rOzCSzCHkJdLj4 wBj+UDWx3YIvah6PzZpR7K8WN50lhjM04Lp26kg3AYzJlNeNz+0Yl1AjBz//ZB6Xeq2l ZIuNonZaljRqNBETspRxHkBY+RtHYHIsqvTMvcTCQri+/jnUkeM+t3f59J5v/2v/3e8i oClg== X-Received: by 10.66.236.74 with SMTP id us10mr59178788pac.64.1440520387307; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.42.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pj3sm21642134pdb.6.2015.08.25.09.33.05 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:27:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net> <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> To: Fabio Maino X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:33:15 -0000 I agree with everything Fabio stated. To me this means, in totality, we = support the following data-planes and corresponding well-known port = numbers: (1) L3 LISP ala RFC 6830, port 4341 (2) L2 LISP ala Smith Internet Draft, port 8472 (3) VXLAN already in the field, port 4789 (4) LISP-GPE, port 4341 (5) VXLAN-GPE, port 4790 And nothting else. Supporting (4) and (5) will allow (2) and (3) to eventually go away. = Which means we end up with port 4341 for L2 and L3 overlay support using = a LISP header, and L2 and L3 overlay support using a VXLAN header. And the LISP header and the VXLAN header look so much alike that we can = conclude that VXLAN is just a less-feature data-plane than LISP. We go this route, we head in a direction of *less* encapsulations that = do *more* functionality than we have today. Dino > On Aug 25, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Fabio Maino wrote: >=20 > As an author, I certainly support inclusion of VXLAN-GPE (and its = counterpart LISP-GPE) and I'll continue to contribute to that work. >=20 > Given the wide availability of VXLAN in many HW and SW platforms, it = may make sense to include VXLAN as well, especially for the NVO3 use = cases. Note that with VXLAN-GPE, support for VXLAN will come almost = implicitly. >=20 >=20 > Fabio >=20 >=20 > On 8/25/15 2:02 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> Hi All, >>=20 >> Thanks from the reply so far. >>=20 >> What I gather is that there is interest in extending the LISP overlay = model to support other data-planes. >>=20 >> What remain unclear is what those data-planes should be. >> Note that it is impossible to cover all existing data-planes. >>=20 >> Would be helpful if the group gives a clearer direction by suggesting = a set encaps to add support for. >> (this include as well the willingness to directly contribute to the = work) >>=20 >> ciao >>=20 >> L. >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:05, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >>> by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >>> on each other. >>> However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current = specifications >>> allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >>>=20 >>> In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =E2=80=9Cmap assisted = overlays=E2=80=9D >>> more work is needed. >>>=20 >>> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an = extended/enhanced >>> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly = larger and >>> allow as well to support multiple headers type? >>> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >>> (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >>>=20 >>> Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay = model >>> in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane = already allows? >>> And what should be the scope? >>>=20 >>> Joel & Luigi >>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Tue Aug 25 10:02:02 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45EB1A1A98 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1RR_XuGggPVs for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD5401A90F0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacti10 with SMTP id ti10so56708932pac.0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=T0Gf657k00mLq6mjw1WrvOtqAbOa2WKeNeLiU4mp+Js=; b=Zf90W1jIYE31QYpoOAGIxmcVoIa9jFrwwczhCC1Gkq3PQoMvgO5tTUdS52LCEQRHXb Q+sWiyyyb1ryQvDvutG7hhLQFlReQJNV8RoKHRGHmzO17uAMtOAAzJT6TmTuVUTT2NZ5 yuGSeWsvC1iWPvYDUdR73KHYM0QJZ1SYQzao9HwRCn2X99v2qTiPuRCfa3z4ER02BDV6 ZLig3pcsRHHu7M0/aiHZVfHVkm0qFMdzMrZWgB69nSoNk8Oo756YSpr1z2KQxmn4ATXe O2hu9fH7V47m9oHLppUzJDfRnithwdTQbupWIUEFdXMQ/bTz87cN24cp7bi3eQI9jias ltAw== X-Received: by 10.66.154.167 with SMTP id vp7mr57307771pab.147.1440522120457; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.170.42.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fn15sm21696471pdb.50.2015.08.25.10.01.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <79C91048-2FD5-4DE7-9FBD-381E8489C9AF@gigix.net> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A119874-1017-4D3E-BDAA-8D8E088E430C@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> <79C91048-2FD5-4DE7-9FBD-381E8489C9AF@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:02:02 -0000 > We cannot write a charter that states =E2=80=9CLISP will support NVO3 = use-cases=E2=80=9D. How about this specific text: For the NVo3 use-case, LISP will support L2-overlays by selecting a = data-plane that supports encapsulation of MAC frames in IPv4 or IPv6 = packets and by using the mapping database that supports (instance-ID, = MAC-address) extended-EIDs. Dino= From nobody Wed Aug 26 01:37:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCB01A1B91 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:37:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l4Wq66umwIYn for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5F11A0115 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so37127182wic.1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:37:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=H5Y319+PUHX7ly6FP/NbCgOjgoaCyqiQpEud0ZF8kp8=; b=h/teczXJgml25oBKTsiUF99nXzlJlMfUHJLILlAwMk3OnzWK5EaVLjfgoDIw7i2q4a 2OCrBMzjNJkjvFQSSmyee+3Mn+VmG0Ksq8wHzQIDQP8GyJGWjF0JkBV462/mM3VtNgyG 8gdk83DJxAiZCyeay9V//r8/RrFjydpyBWTtTrK8YI8bVlargQyg8PY2HY6AjW50QGW9 /CyFIEg0u3O4kruy3UncLqY3DuPGjnZbgUOseuBwpB17jkp9uDfBV/wAYR4BmHbj+RfW +hgl0BfoYxoLc5/pgLL1FKGKye0eJqWeQjDJZLhXiqB4IoxLMJClypOHBAIamt60NN1b xMww== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQMXz/rRWHlP4MhSLC3Qw6VgPGDI6qttvZa94ZDMAFXoGb0TMHHgTRUEguEOX0F9QfmuL3 X-Received: by 10.194.176.201 with SMTP id ck9mr56037686wjc.108.1440578243006; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:cc85:208d:7de3:f52f? ([2001:660:330f:a4:cc85:208d:7de3:f52f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ck18sm2653595wjb.47.2015.08.26.01.37.21 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <1A119874-1017-4D3E-BDAA-8D8E088E430C@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:38:04 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <634BFCAB-0749-4309-937D-F2297A8C72CF@gigix.net> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> <79C91048-2FD5-4DE7-9FBD-381E8489C9AF@gigix.net> <1A119874-1017-4D3E-BDAA-8D8E088E430C@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:37:26 -0000 > On 25 Aug 2015, at 19:02, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 >> We cannot write a charter that states =E2=80=9CLISP will support NVO3 = use-cases=E2=80=9D. >=20 > How about this specific text: >=20 > For the NVo3 use-case, LISP will support L2-overlays by selecting a = data-plane that supports encapsulation of MAC frames in IPv4 or IPv6 = packets and by using the mapping database that supports (instance-ID, = MAC-address) extended-EIDs. >=20 Better=E2=80=A6 but I personally (no hats on) would prefer an tighter = charter with a more precise list milestones.=20 May be the overlay model thread will give us such list ;-) L. =20 > Dino From nobody Wed Aug 26 01:45:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF6F1ACE41 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:45:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-vRP_uykK-f for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52DCD1AC7E8 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so8168842wic.1 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:45:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=r7W2fTuOydIpx8Kd37AIPAXasHDmi4dCzhubuDyeWFg=; b=EOEh05o/LEMWY1/YyFGUqCgNM8lbXndB7HbYFB8wL/j1D7aojWK8CT7dIwOGuBCBk8 xZmxAKu2ObLSgq4derOUiLlvEgIbSjQJyTYTP4lzK3mU3umPGuebfK6z5xPRYnEhOU8C zOy7HFHdgK6CbFfEcwqP7fLFAyMPK6pCzIymtZvm641bb2VhO3l77cBvff0LzIruEMsn ciO6Gz3c4+KaxpuS5rFjIfBG/p0hcI8T2/SWzNwv+BmYiRGuT0h48R4dx7gh6W6MxoQd Hbs3ITcSPl+YULMlLc2xN5mSzZ6zkc770DptRDUlXzLcEhwT/1/CbA8OZlm7XY0ow+wE f12w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmOyMlF0nwDkNrMvDDyVDWnSCRConFQiFeihyzIuS4ucArA4Z6NV+2e+IPl+5AxIT4H6LKC X-Received: by 10.180.83.227 with SMTP id t3mr11387213wiy.55.1440578714056; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:cc85:208d:7de3:f52f? ([2001:660:330f:a4:cc85:208d:7de3:f52f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ho10sm2694681wjb.39.2015.08.26.01.45.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:45:56 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net> <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:45:17 -0000 > On 25 Aug 2015, at 18:27, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > I agree with everything Fabio stated. To me this means, in totality, = we support the following data-planes and corresponding well-known port = numbers: >=20 > (1) L3 LISP ala RFC 6830, port 4341 > (2) L2 LISP ala Smith Internet Draft, port 8472 > (3) VXLAN already in the field, port 4789 > (4) LISP-GPE, port 4341 I do not think this would work.=20 How can you make the difference between a LISP-GPE and a LISP header = when both use the same UDP port? You would need side information about whether or not an xTR supports or = not the LISP-GPE header. Feasible, but I fear that we will end up with so many corner cases that = will make the solution complex. Further, LISP-GPE and VXLAN-GPE are so similar that makes me wonder why = should we have both? L. > (5) VXLAN-GPE, port 4790 >=20 > And nothting else. >=20 > Supporting (4) and (5) will allow (2) and (3) to eventually go away. = Which means we end up with port 4341 for L2 and L3 overlay support using = a LISP header, and L2 and L3 overlay support using a VXLAN header. >=20 > And the LISP header and the VXLAN header look so much alike that we = can conclude that VXLAN is just a less-feature data-plane than LISP. >=20 > We go this route, we head in a direction of *less* encapsulations that = do *more* functionality than we have today. >=20 > Dino >=20 >> On Aug 25, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Fabio Maino wrote: >>=20 >> As an author, I certainly support inclusion of VXLAN-GPE (and its = counterpart LISP-GPE) and I'll continue to contribute to that work. >>=20 >> Given the wide availability of VXLAN in many HW and SW platforms, it = may make sense to include VXLAN as well, especially for the NVO3 use = cases. Note that with VXLAN-GPE, support for VXLAN will come almost = implicitly. >>=20 >>=20 >> Fabio >>=20 >>=20 >> On 8/25/15 2:02 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>> Hi All, >>>=20 >>> Thanks from the reply so far. >>>=20 >>> What I gather is that there is interest in extending the LISP = overlay model to support other data-planes. >>>=20 >>> What remain unclear is what those data-planes should be. >>> Note that it is impossible to cover all existing data-planes. >>>=20 >>> Would be helpful if the group gives a clearer direction by = suggesting a set encaps to add support for. >>> (this include as well the willingness to directly contribute to the = work) >>>=20 >>> ciao >>>=20 >>> L. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On 10 Aug 2015, at 00:05, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Hi, >>>>=20 >>>> LISP provides a rather complete and powerful control-plane, where >>>> by means of LCAF, possibly any existing namespace can be mapped >>>> on each other. >>>> However, the data-plane is not as flexible. The current = specifications >>>> allow only IPv4 over IPv6 and vice versa. >>>>=20 >>>> In order to create what Sharon Barakai defined =E2=80=9Cmap = assisted overlays=E2=80=9D >>>> more work is needed. >>>>=20 >>>> In this context the WG should also decide whether just an = extended/enhanced >>>> data-plane is sufficient/needed. Or should the scope be slightly = larger and >>>> allow as well to support multiple headers type? >>>> Such header are not necessarily defined by the LISP WG >>>> (e.g. VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, GUE, etc.) >>>>=20 >>>> Would the WG be interested in working in extending the LISP overlay = model >>>> in order to provide data-plane support for what the control plane = already allows? >>>> And what should be the scope? >>>>=20 >>>> Joel & Luigi >>>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Wed Aug 26 03:54:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E681B29AD; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:54:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZIgSKUqrXik; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6412D1AD0C9; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150826105450.31198.49139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:54:50 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-threats-13.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:54:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : LISP Threats Analysis Authors : Damien Saucez Luigi Iannone Olivier Bonaventure Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-threats-13.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2015-08-26 Abstract: This document proposes a threat analysis of the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). 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: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-threats-13 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-threats-13 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Aug 26 09:45:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B791B2C63 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J4HIzFyDmCFd for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91CD31B2C1C for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacdd16 with SMTP id dd16so165830400pac.2 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O2KE+KjvcKYiXTnk5twEcyqqPDgyLsOGDk7l7Ws0t4Q=; b=n5RoriSv15UQNImyGoQ4O8O9RlGrgBwfnzQkgpePs1aNvrM2DFMD6i1ps4KtdJlcHc dK1OXon29cGnUKSFCR04m6y2gOCBHJslkW8S/oGgEgQjDqDBhsXKZPLye2yhGqkrlXcf pYVElRjfUQQhqJlUeHUikXhwgZ1Zu0rS2M1jiSsxaE7rurmzIQAmDokLxB6GdmMfgr04 TeJTnie45s/DGCcYLXdFBRKGy9KIhTWGM63822C99latDSjGQaTWU/AHTnEJOX1EYeI5 MoIsxXZdFBEKSWVOEgW3L1CJmk0Q7yOzi6dS26wVV3qGkZ+rK8925lfSDsS8Jct5P+BO b2gA== X-Received: by 10.68.57.170 with SMTP id j10mr71792248pbq.56.1440607501264; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.177.248.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s6sm19514702pdj.62.2015.08.26.09.44.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <634BFCAB-0749-4309-937D-F2297A8C72CF@gigix.net> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:44:59 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <48D5D504-5D16-4C36-B4F9-EBECD26A0E8E@gmail.com> References: <77630894-48BB-483D-BE68-A15555F55CE2@gigix.net> <55C92A78.2050406@joelhalpern.com> <20E63E0C-01BC-4370-9C0D-12E11630E9AA@gmail.com> <7D1E5F8A-7A83-4158-A770-4468986EC380@gmail.com> <0BD14407-A35D-451D-B166-0D5CD36619D5@gmail.com> <79C91048-2FD5-4DE7-9FBD-381E8489C9AF@gigix.net> <1A119874-1017-4D3E-BDAA-8D8E088E430C@gmail.com> <634BFCAB-0749-4309-937D-F2297A8C72CF@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Use Cases X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:45:03 -0000 I can certainly help you with the charter text and get as specific as we = need to. Dino > On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On 25 Aug 2015, at 19:02, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >>> We cannot write a charter that states =E2=80=9CLISP will support = NVO3 use-cases=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> How about this specific text: >>=20 >> For the NVo3 use-case, LISP will support L2-overlays by selecting a = data-plane that supports encapsulation of MAC frames in IPv4 or IPv6 = packets and by using the mapping database that supports (instance-ID, = MAC-address) extended-EIDs. >>=20 >=20 > Better=E2=80=A6 but I personally (no hats on) would prefer an tighter = charter with a more precise list milestones.=20 >=20 > May be the overlay model thread will give us such list ;-) >=20 > L. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Dino >=20 From nobody Wed Aug 26 10:07:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D7F1ACE30 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJictPzcO2Wz for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671011ACCFD for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacgr6 with SMTP id gr6so14577964pac.3 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=j5ZdF+n5EhhLh6SvVu6wPXO6Sbt3yP7bIrHbRRgsL34=; b=UM8UkoCXcJrcgnJa6aPQL61hU9kSYecWjKmteRz0eETZ28QUckWcpywWsCvevYY+QY PWAgVaYQV2Pr+pXEeOHuXpWPl477DoLMeAvniRwQlKxRFaOyexf7VVsYxEa1kfusCRZx sy6nkH3yYOQhZlDOya4SEgcDirCvfxG5GdZUzOe3u0bIh+L4BsDj0jkkYOltTykoEDSO qTIiFKq7fhgwLWkUIebP/2aG9x/A3YF49DtwWkXah5yBIAfKeeWAI1EYPPHXGkbTGWYr vO7QWtt8XSPH9y/pS6oT4qfcd3G7kOJB3kdhpZWbzJZEcSYbeFzeBcc+VqRYXC++fpuc Wm3Q== X-Received: by 10.68.191.232 with SMTP id hb8mr71217616pbc.122.1440608835718; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([166.177.248.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fp5sm25256780pbb.94.2015.08.26.10.07.14 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:07:14 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4709DE45-682E-4B7E-B979-94FC8A05F5D4@gmail.com> References: <89CA974F-ADB1-444E-BF65-7C2B8C572AA6@gigix.net> <2819C9B6-4BD7-438A-BEF7-6AAB85AD136F@gigix.net> <55DC76E1.3040109@cisco.com> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) Archived-At: Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Overlay Model X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:07:18 -0000 >=20 >> On 25 Aug 2015, at 18:27, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >> I agree with everything Fabio stated. To me this means, in totality, = we support the following data-planes and corresponding well-known port = numbers: >>=20 >> (1) L3 LISP ala RFC 6830, port 4341 >> (2) L2 LISP ala Smith Internet Draft, port 8472 >> (3) VXLAN already in the field, port 4789 >> (4) LISP-GPE, port 4341 >=20 > I do not think this would work.=20 > How can you make the difference between a LISP-GPE and a LISP header = when both use the same UDP port? There really isn=E2=80=99t any difference. The P-bit is cleared in the = RFC 6830 (because it is unspecified). I was being explicit above to not = exclude LISP-GPE. > You would need side information about whether or not an xTR supports = or not the LISP-GPE header. There is compatability text in the LISP-GPE draft to handle this. But = that is why I proposed the Encapsulation Format Type LCAF, so an ITR = knows the data-plane formats the ETR supports. We=E2=80=99ll need to = depend on this to support multiple data-planes. > Feasible, but I fear that we will end up with so many corner cases = that will make the solution complex. Well I agree 100%. And I would push for just (1) and (2) only. But = people will object.=20 So if you really want to be practical (which I do want to be), we should = support (1) and (3) only. Because that is what is already deployed in = the field. (1) for L3 overlays, and (2) for L2 overlays. The data-plane situation in NVo3 is a total mess with no adult = supervision. I have to state this because we need to be careful how much = mess we bring into the LISP WG. > Further, LISP-GPE and VXLAN-GPE are so similar that makes me wonder = why should we have both? This discussion has already occurred. You need the authors to justify = this. Dino