Subject: [lisp] Issue Title (number): Editorial Comments to Section 8 (34)

From: Darrel Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:17:48 -0700

Issue Title (number): Editorial Comments to Section 8(34)
Draft Section: 8
Issue Description: General LISP edits to section 8 by Demitri and Yakov
Comments:

From D. Papadimitriou's review:

Section 8.1 first paragraph, it is not the location of the source that determines the “size” of the working set of the EID prefix-to-RLOC cache but the number of EID prefixes this “source site” has to reach. The same issue occurs at ETR, small sites may have to be configured with a large list of EID-to-RLOC mapping entries. Next to this the granularity of the EID prefix allocation is also important.

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

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

This is hard to understand.

This is part of Comment 36

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

What exactly does "suboptimal" mean here?

Response:

Dear Dimitri, Yakov-

Thank you for your contribution to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt. The draft authors
have reviewed your comments but do not feel that changes to the document are
warranted at this time. We do however feel that this information could be 
very useful in a 'deployment guide' or 'uses' type draft.  Please feel free 
to continue discussion of your issue on the LISP working group mailing 
list, [email-masked]. Should discussion result in WG consensus that changes 
are required, the authors will incorporate
appropriate text into a future version of the draft.

	Thanks!
	Darrel, for the LISP document authors