From terry.manderson@icann.org Thu Dec 2 17:11:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A370A3A6A38 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:11:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3lgItbXdRi3z for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8561F3A6A31 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:13:02 -0800 From: Terry Manderson To: "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:13:00 -0800 Thread-Topic: a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID Thread-Index: AcuShznojH6m8iPRIkCks65OBgkmOw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 01:11:53 -0000 Folks, WG co-chair hat on. During the Beijing meeting, the desire for a block of IPv6 for LISP EIDs what expressed by several participants. Some discussion occurred and a /16 appeared to be the suitable size. The action item on the Chairs was to bring this to the mailing list and first ask the questions: o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? o - Is a /16 the "right" size? If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's draft (tha= t he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation from IANA= . Cheers Terry (& Joel) PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block administere= d and the required work needed in RIR-land. From terry.manderson@icann.org Thu Dec 2 17:12:28 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2593A6A2C for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:12:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y9OQUmdkGSn1 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6603A6852 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:13:44 -0800 From: Terry Manderson To: "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:13:43 -0800 Thread-Topic: draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item Thread-Index: AcuSh1OKohUjOsPUSkqXldXCU7QmSQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 01:12:28 -0000 Workgroup, The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be considered as a workgroup item. I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this document as a WG item. You will find the ID at: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, pleas= e also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or review, (or both) the draft. Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond appropriately. Cheers Terry (& Joel) From terry.manderson@icann.org Thu Dec 2 17:18:46 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623553A69F8 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:18:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sAL4DO-kLdr7 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2AD3A683F for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:20:01 -0800 From: Terry Manderson To: "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:19:58 -0800 Thread-Topic: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item Thread-Index: AcuSh1OKohUjOsPUSkqXldXCU7QmSQAAN+Ft Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 01:18:47 -0000 Sigh... Cut-n-paste mistake.. Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the item before Wednesday the 22nd of December 2010. .. really not enough coffee.. (donations welcome ;) Apologies. Terry On 3/12/10 11:13 AM, "Terry Manderson" wrote: > Workgroup, >=20 > The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be > considered as a workgroup item. >=20 > I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this document = as > a WG item. >=20 > You will find the ID at: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 >=20 > Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, t= he > item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. >=20 > If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, ple= ase > also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or > review, (or both) the draft. >=20 > Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond appropriatel= y. >=20 >=20 > Cheers > Terry (& Joel) >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From vimoreno@cisco.com Thu Dec 2 17:41:04 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964B93A6A34 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:41:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dc5l0RpVKxpE for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5288B3A67F3 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:41:03 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAPPZ90yrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACjL3GnTJsUhUcEhF6JIA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,290,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="295323298" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 01:42:19 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB31gJC6025226; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 01:42:20 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.153]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:42:19 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:42:18 -0800 Message-ID: <8874F6219396A04CA291C90CCD7F9C070EE5C979@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item Thread-Index: AcuSh1OKohUjOsPUSkqXldXCU7QmSQAAN+FtAADFAcA= References: From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" To: "Terry Manderson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2010 01:42:19.0889 (UTC) FILETIME=[52E2B610:01CB928B] Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 01:41:04 -0000 Approve, will contribute and review -v > -----Original Message----- > From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Terry Manderson > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:20 PM > To: lisp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item >=20 > Sigh... >=20 > Cut-n-paste mistake.. >=20 > Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the > item before Wednesday the 22nd of December 2010. >=20 > .. really not enough coffee.. >=20 > (donations welcome ;) >=20 > Apologies. > Terry >=20 > On 3/12/10 11:13 AM, "Terry Manderson" wrote: >=20 > > Workgroup, > > > > The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be > > considered as a workgroup item. > > > > I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this document > as > > a WG item. > > > > You will find the ID at: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 > > > > Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, > the > > item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. > > > > If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, > please > > also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or > > review, (or both) the draft. > > > > Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond > appropriately. > > > > > > Cheers > > Terry (& Joel) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 dino@cisco.com Thu Dec 2 17:42:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AC53A6A35 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:42:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVYyceE-dexH for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:42:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37DB3A67F3 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:42:49 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,290,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="296626879" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 01:44:06 +0000 Received: from [10.34.153.93] ([10.34.153.93]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB31i67v006047; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 01:44:06 GMT Message-Id: <7A1950DF-002E-40F7-B88B-F39E31FEA067@cisco.com> From: Dino Farinacci To: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" In-Reply-To: <8874F6219396A04CA291C90CCD7F9C070EE5C979@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:44:06 -0800 References: <8874F6219396A04CA291C90CCD7F9C070EE5C979@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 01:42:50 -0000 +1 Dino On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) wrote: > Approve, will contribute and review > > -v > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of >> Terry Manderson >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:20 PM >> To: lisp@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item >> >> Sigh... >> >> Cut-n-paste mistake.. >> >> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not > accept, the >> item before Wednesday the 22nd of December 2010. >> >> .. really not enough coffee.. >> >> (donations welcome ;) >> >> Apologies. >> Terry >> >> On 3/12/10 11:13 AM, "Terry Manderson" > wrote: >> >>> Workgroup, >>> >>> The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be >>> considered as a workgroup item. >>> >>> I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this > document >> as >>> a WG item. >>> >>> You will find the ID at: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 >>> >>> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not > accept, >> the >>> item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. >>> >>> If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG > item, >> please >>> also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, > or >>> review, (or both) the draft. >>> >>> Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond >> appropriately. >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Terry (& Joel) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From dino@cisco.com Thu Dec 2 18:03:25 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B463A6A42 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:03:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovF+weqJyskc for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620FE3A686C for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:03:23 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFff90yrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACjL3GnRpsShUcEhF6GCYMR X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,290,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="296633546" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 02:04:40 +0000 Received: from [10.34.153.93] ([10.34.153.93]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB324eHD010459; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 02:04:40 GMT Message-Id: From: Dino Farinacci To: Terry Manderson In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:04:39 -0800 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 02:03:25 -0000 > o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? I think so. > o - Is a /16 the "right" size? I think so. > If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's > draft (that > he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation > from IANA. I vote for resurrection. Dino From job@instituut.net Thu Dec 2 23:55:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D3F3A6AA5 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:55:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BuWXLo0BKrg8 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:55:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD6C3A6AA2 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so19293525ewy.40 for ; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.47.78 with SMTP id s54mr1300764eeb.20.1291362980477; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.42.205] ([85.223.119.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w20sm1240361eeh.6.2010.12.02.23.56.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:56:18 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Job W. J. Snijders" In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:56:19 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8099B785-BABB-4980-B9FB-2A595D403120@instituut.net> References: To: Terry Manderson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 07:55:06 -0000 Approve, will contribute and review.=20 On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: > Workgroup, >=20 > The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be > considered as a workgroup item. >=20 > I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this = document as > a WG item. >=20 > You will find the ID at: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 >=20 > Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not = accept, the > item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. >=20 > If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, = please > also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or > review, (or both) the draft. >=20 > Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond = appropriately. >=20 >=20 > Cheers > Terry (& Joel) >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de Fri Dec 3 00:35:32 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FB728C107 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:35:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kOCRgeeUs1rj for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.220.252]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC4A3A67FD for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyn119.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (dyn119.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.220.119]) by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFD870000E5; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:36:46 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <8099B785-BABB-4980-B9FB-2A595D403120@instituut.net> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:36:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8099B785-BABB-4980-B9FB-2A595D403120@instituut.net> To: Job W. J. Snijders X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 08:35:32 -0000 +1 Luigi On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:56 , Job W. J. Snijders wrote: > Approve, will contribute and review.=20 >=20 > On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: >=20 >> Workgroup, >>=20 >> The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be >> considered as a workgroup item. >>=20 >> I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this = document as >> a WG item. >>=20 >> You will find the ID at: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 >>=20 >> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not = accept, the >> item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. >>=20 >> If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, = please >> also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or >> review, (or both) the draft. >>=20 >> Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond = appropriately. >>=20 >>=20 >> Cheers >> Terry (& Joel) >>=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 luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de Fri Dec 3 00:45:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827D43A6AAE for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:45:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zuFh+vuAZwGt for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:45:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.220.252]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437543A6AAD for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:45:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyn119.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (dyn119.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.220.119]) by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFDB700044E; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:47:03 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-76--473788858 From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:47:03 +0100 Message-Id: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> References: To: Terry Manderson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 08:45:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail-76--473788858 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 , Terry Manderson wrote: [snip] >=20 > o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? I think that it will help, but... We should try to be clever and not evolve to a LISPv6 world where only = people that are in that block can use LISP. Ergo, let's keep the system = open to people that are no willing to renumber. > o - Is a /16 the "right" size? >=20 IMHO it is more than enough. > If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's draft = (that > he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation from = IANA. >=20 OK also on this, but.... I would prefer avoiding any reference to specific mapping system = solutions. In the version forwarded by Dave there is strong reference to = LISP+ALT. I would prefer more discussion on why and how we plan to use = the block. I can help in the writing if needed. ciao Luigi > Cheers > Terry (& Joel) >=20 > PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block = administered > and the required work needed in RIR-land. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail-76--473788858 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP = needed?

I think that it will = help, but...

We should try to be clever and not = evolve to a LISPv6 world where only people that are in that block can = use LISP. Ergo, let's keep the system open to people that are no willing = to renumber.

o - Is a = /16 the "right" size?


IMHO = it is more than enough.

If there = is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's draft = (that
he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 = allocation from IANA.


OK = also on this, but....

I would prefer avoiding = any reference to specific mapping system solutions. In the version = forwarded by Dave there is strong reference to LISP+ALT. I would prefer = more discussion on why and how we plan to use the block. I can help in = the writing if = needed.

ciao

Luigi
=


Cheers
Terry (& = Joel)

PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this = block administered
and the required work needed in = RIR-land.

_______________________________________________
lisp = mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/lisp

= --Apple-Mail-76--473788858-- From damien.saucez@uclouvain.be Fri Dec 3 00:46:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E18D3A6AAC for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:46:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXNvrAFXaz20 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:46:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7B328C180 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:46:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from sleipnier.dhcp.info.ucl.ac.be (sleipnier.dhcp.info.ucl.ac.be [130.104.228.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dsaucez@smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C472F28E1 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:46:54 +0100 (CET) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 smtp4.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 8C472F28E1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1291366014; bh=TaoZxhXW0d/nn8PKAhVVqhZV4Ngn2mwsYBnMGU+6hrM=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=Bjibg1wttyp1H7tv9e0zm8TkghoTr7zdOYvJJFXBH2YBFbkBl+O8SBasbiZPbTAo5 Q6CqQRkV4ssnemBRb43x/WGTakazRFnjBCoGFRP9ACpnXbG9HwBkRzKDYqO1++1oyM ljAI2gigbadliAd9auXsY3O2vLO6sUWcKKyhX1Kw= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:46:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8099B785-BABB-4980-B9FB-2A595D403120@instituut.net> To: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.4-exp at smtp-4.sipr-dc.ucl.ac.be X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated, X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 8C472F28E1.00000 X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SGSI-From: damien.saucez@uclouvain.be X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 08:46:18 -0000 support acceptance + review. Damien Saucez On 03 Dec 2010, at 09:36, Luigi Iannone wrote: > +1 >=20 > Luigi >=20 > On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:56 , Job W. J. Snijders wrote: >=20 >> Approve, will contribute and review.=20 >>=20 >> On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Terry Manderson wrote: >>=20 >>> Workgroup, >>>=20 >>> The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be >>> considered as a workgroup item. >>>=20 >>> I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this = document as >>> a WG item. >>>=20 >>> You will find the ID at: >>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 >>>=20 >>> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not = accept, the >>> item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. >>>=20 >>> If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG = item, please >>> also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, = or >>> review, (or both) the draft. >>>=20 >>> Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond = appropriately. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Cheers >>> Terry (& Joel) >>>=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 gschudel@cisco.com Fri Dec 3 05:07:14 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CFB28C0D6 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:07:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ltW8Ff9VY3LF for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:07:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EC728B797 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:07:13 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnsFALt6+EyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACVH44Vcac8myiFSASEXoYN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,293,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="227098207" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 13:08:29 +0000 Received: from gschudel-mac-2.local ([10.21.168.183]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB3D8SUX022828 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:08:29 GMT Message-ID: <4CF8EBCC.9080801@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 05:08:28 -0800 From: Gregg Schudel Organization: cisco.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lisp@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 13:07:14 -0000 On 12/2/10 5:19 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: >> The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be >> considered as a workgroup item. >> >> >> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the >> item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. Accept please. Happy to contribute and review Cheers gregg From dmm@1-4-5.net Fri Dec 3 07:12:15 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1647D28C120 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:12:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.401, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vc2srLRL3HPV for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995FC28C11E for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:11:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so8672184qwg.31 for ; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 07:13:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.19.202 with SMTP id c10mr135058qab.207.1291389184462; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 07:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.176.199 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:13:04 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:13:04 -0800 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Terry Manderson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cb4ac9b5176049682f9ae Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 15:12:15 -0000 --0015175cb4ac9b5176049682f9ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 accept, willing to review, .... Dave On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: > Sigh... > > Cut-n-paste mistake.. > > Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the > item before Wednesday the 22nd of December 2010. > > .. really not enough coffee.. > > (donations welcome ;) > > Apologies. > Terry > > On 3/12/10 11:13 AM, "Terry Manderson" wrote: > > > Workgroup, > > > > The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be > > considered as a workgroup item. > > > > I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this document > as > > a WG item. > > > > You will find the ID at: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 > > > > Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, > the > > item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010. > > > > If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, > please > > also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or > > review, (or both) the draft. > > > > Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond > appropriately. > > > > > > Cheers > > Terry (& Joel) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --0015175cb4ac9b5176049682f9ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable accept, willing to review, ....


Dave


On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Te= rry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> wrote:
Sigh...

Cut-n-paste mistake..

Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept, the=
item before Wednesday the 22nd of December 2010.

.. really not enough coffee..

(donations welcome ;)

Apologies.
Terry

On 3/12/10 11:13 AM, "Terry Manderson" <terry.manderson@icann.org> wrote:

> Workgroup,
>
> The authors of draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 have requested for it to be > considered as a workgroup item.
>
> I am opening a 14 day call for comments on the adoption of this docume= nt as
> a WG item.
>
> You will find the ID at:
>
> =A0 =A0 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 >
> Please email the WG list stating that you either accept, or not accept= , the
> item before Wednesday the 22nd of August 2010.
>
> If you email to support the acceptance of this document as a WG item, = please
> also indicate if you are able and willing to either contribute to, or<= br> > review, (or both) the draft.
>
> Sitting in silence does not indicate support, please respond appropria= tely.
>
>
> Cheers
> Terry (& Joel)
>
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

--0015175cb4ac9b5176049682f9ae-- From dmm@1-4-5.net Fri Dec 3 07:12:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778AC28C0EB for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:12:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DuE0drjXxDpP for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D0B3A6AF1 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so8673294qwg.31 for ; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 07:14:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.179.210 with SMTP id br18mr1338319qab.357.1291389250813; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 07:14:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.176.199 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:14:10 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:14:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Terry Manderson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30334f138fbf6e049682fd34 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 15:12:54 -0000 --20cf30334f138fbf6e049682fd34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'll just note that I'll update the draft to use current definitions and to give a bit more of an explanation as to why we'd like the block. Dave On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: > Folks, > > WG co-chair hat on. > > During the Beijing meeting, the desire for a block of IPv6 for LISP EIDs > what expressed by several participants. Some discussion occurred and a /16 > appeared to be the suitable size. > > The action item on the Chairs was to bring this to the mailing list and > first ask the questions: > > o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? > o - Is a /16 the "right" size? > > If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's draft > (that > he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation from > IANA. > > Cheers > Terry (& Joel) > > PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block > administered > and the required work needed in RIR-land. > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > --20cf30334f138fbf6e049682fd34 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'll just note that I'll update the draft to use current definition= s and to give
a bit more of an explanation as to why we'd like the = block.

Dave


On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> wrote:
Folks,

WG co-chair hat on.

During the Beijing meeting, the desire for a block of IPv6 for LISP EIDs what expressed by several participants. Some discussion occurred and a /16<= br> appeared to be the suitable size.

The action item on the Chairs was to bring this to the mailing list and
first ask the questions:

o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed?
o - Is a /16 the "right" size?

If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's draft = (that
he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation from IANA= .

Cheers
Terry (& Joel)

PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block administere= d
and the required work needed in RIR-land.

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

--20cf30334f138fbf6e049682fd34-- From dino@cisco.com Fri Dec 3 08:44:04 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1177928C113 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:44:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XhU2R7akfpIB for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384E228C108 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:44:03 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJat+EyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACjNnGoC5sqhUgEhF6GDYMS X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,294,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="296971104" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2010 16:45:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (sjc-vpn2-298.cisco.com [10.21.113.42]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB3GjKCa012203; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:45:20 GMT Message-Id: <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> From: Dino Farinacci To: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:45:20 -0800 References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 16:44:04 -0000 > On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 , Terry Manderson wrote: > > [snip] >> >> o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? > > I think that it will help, but... > > We should try to be clever and not evolve to a LISPv6 world where > only people that are in that block can use LISP. Ergo, let's keep > the system open to people that are no willing to renumber. Definitely agree. What this new /16 block does is in an ITR at a remote site that is sending to all types of destinations (i.e. non-LISP destinations, LISP destinations not in this block, and LISP destinations in this block) that when configured with a configuration command to "use-well-known- eid-block" that when a packet arrives that is not destined to this block, the ITR will natively forward it is not a LISP site. Today, the way this behaves is by sending a Map-Request for a destination that is not a LISP-site which means packets are dropped until the mapping system tells the ITR that it's not a LISP site. To be sensitive to Luigi's comment above, when the configuration command is disabled, then it works like it does today. Dino > >> o - Is a /16 the "right" size? >> > > IMHO it is more than enough. > >> If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's >> draft (that >> he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation >> from IANA. >> > > OK also on this, but.... > > I would prefer avoiding any reference to specific mapping system > solutions. In the version forwarded by Dave there is strong > reference to LISP+ALT. I would prefer more discussion on why and how > we plan to use the block. I can help in the writing if needed. > > ciao > > Luigi > > >> Cheers >> Terry (& Joel) >> >> PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block >> administered >> and the required work needed in RIR-land. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Dec 3 09:40:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0151D28C12F for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:40:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L50ttyU7gOcp for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:40:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (hgblob.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06233A6975 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65FA3245C2F; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:41:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-51-24.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF1B832449E0; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:41:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:41:18 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dino Farinacci References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Dec 2010 17:40:23 -0000 I am not sure I follow how this would "work". (Color me a confused participant.) On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved block. On the other hand, I do not see how a reserved prefix helps us if any noticeable amount of LISP IPv6 usage is outside of that block. Dino, you suggest that it could be used depending upon a setting of the border ITR. But the question of whether one needs to check is not a matter of the originating site. It is precisely a matter of whether one is talking to sites that are LISP and outside of the prefix. So it seems like turning on the knob you propose (to turn off the map checks for destinations outside of the allocated prefix) would mean that such destinations would end up going through some random PITR, since they are actually LISP sites. Hence they would get worse traffic behavior when talking to regular LISP sites than they would if they did not use LISP. Yours, Joel On 12/3/2010 11:45 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 , Terry Manderson wrote: >> >> [snip] >>> >>> o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? >> >> I think that it will help, but... >> >> We should try to be clever and not evolve to a LISPv6 world where only >> people that are in that block can use LISP. Ergo, let's keep the >> system open to people that are no willing to renumber. > > Definitely agree. > > What this new /16 block does is in an ITR at a remote site that is > sending to all types of destinations (i.e. non-LISP destinations, LISP > destinations not in this block, and LISP destinations in this block) > that when configured with a configuration command to > "use-well-known-eid-block" that when a packet arrives that is not > destined to this block, the ITR will natively forward it is not a LISP > site. > > Today, the way this behaves is by sending a Map-Request for a > destination that is not a LISP-site which means packets are dropped > until the mapping system tells the ITR that it's not a LISP site. > > To be sensitive to Luigi's comment above, when the configuration command > is disabled, then it works like it does today. > > Dino > >> >>> o - Is a /16 the "right" size? >>> >> >> IMHO it is more than enough. >> >>> If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's >>> draft (that >>> he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation >>> from IANA. >>> >> >> OK also on this, but.... >> >> I would prefer avoiding any reference to specific mapping system >> solutions. In the version forwarded by Dave there is strong reference >> to LISP+ALT. I would prefer more discussion on why and how we plan to >> use the block. I can help in the writing if needed. >> >> ciao >> >> Luigi >> >> >>> Cheers >>> Terry (& Joel) >>> >>> PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block >>> administered >>> and the required work needed in RIR-land. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From dino@cisco.com Fri Dec 3 16:24:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B9B28C0EA for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:24:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmMhsmI7kKaq for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7A13A69EE for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:24:23 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHEZ+UyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACjJHGncZsahUgEhF6GDYMS X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,296,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="297133522" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2010 00:25:41 +0000 Received: from [192.168.5.47] (sjc-vpn2-551.cisco.com [10.21.114.39]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB40Pfd6010667; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:25:41 GMT Message-Id: <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> From: Dino Farinacci To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 16:25:40 -0800 References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 04 Dec 2010 00:24:48 -0000 > I am not sure I follow how this would "work". > (Color me a confused participant.) > On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in > IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved > block. Because you don't want existing IPv6 sites to renumber to deploy LISP? > On the other hand, I do not see how a reserved prefix helps us if > any noticeable amount of LISP IPv6 usage is outside of that block. Is any noticeable mean a lot or a little? > Dino, you suggest that it could be used depending upon a setting of > the border ITR. But the question of whether one needs to check is > not a matter of the originating site. It is precisely a matter of > whether one is talking to sites that are LISP and outside of the > prefix. No, not really, but I'm having a problem parsing your words above. Can you rephrase please? > So it seems like turning on the knob you propose (to turn off the > map checks for destinations outside of the allocated prefix) would > mean that such destinations would end up going through some random > PITR, since they are actually LISP sites. Hence they would get > worse traffic behavior when talking to regular LISP sites than they > would if they did not use LISP. This is not true. The mapping database tells you if the destination address is a LISP site or not. And if the destination is not a LISP site, you want to forward packets natively directly to the non-LISP site (no PITR involved here). If you turn the knob on, here is the algorithm: (1) If the destination is in the /16 block, send a map-request. (2) If the destination is not in the /16 block, send packet natively to non-LISP site. Dino > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/3/2010 11:45 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:13 , Terry Manderson wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>>> >>>> o - Is a IPv6 block for LISP needed? >>> >>> I think that it will help, but... >>> >>> We should try to be clever and not evolve to a LISPv6 world where >>> only >>> people that are in that block can use LISP. Ergo, let's keep the >>> system open to people that are no willing to renumber. >> >> Definitely agree. >> >> What this new /16 block does is in an ITR at a remote site that is >> sending to all types of destinations (i.e. non-LISP destinations, >> LISP >> destinations not in this block, and LISP destinations in this block) >> that when configured with a configuration command to >> "use-well-known-eid-block" that when a packet arrives that is not >> destined to this block, the ITR will natively forward it is not a >> LISP >> site. >> >> Today, the way this behaves is by sending a Map-Request for a >> destination that is not a LISP-site which means packets are dropped >> until the mapping system tells the ITR that it's not a LISP site. >> >> To be sensitive to Luigi's comment above, when the configuration >> command >> is disabled, then it works like it does today. >> >> Dino >> >>> >>>> o - Is a /16 the "right" size? >>>> >>> >>> IMHO it is more than enough. >>> >>>> If there is consensus on this we can then fully resurrect Dave's >>>> draft (that >>>> he has already posted to the list) to achieve the IPv6 allocation >>>> from IANA. >>>> >>> >>> OK also on this, but.... >>> >>> I would prefer avoiding any reference to specific mapping system >>> solutions. In the version forwarded by Dave there is strong >>> reference >>> to LISP+ALT. I would prefer more discussion on why and how we plan >>> to >>> use the block. I can help in the writing if needed. >>> >>> ciao >>> >>> Luigi >>> >>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Terry (& Joel) >>>> >>>> PS, it may also be worth thinking about how you want this block >>>> administered >>>> and the required work needed in RIR-land. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Dec 3 20:31:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6951B3A6820 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:31:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SBZlj5vd9kPb for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:31:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (hgblob.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E5C3A67E6 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:31:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7924A3254010; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:33:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.101] (pool-71-161-51-24.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6F5B3246F46; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 20:33:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CF9C488.3080201@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:33:12 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dino Farinacci References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 04 Dec 2010 04:31:57 -0000 Rephrasing below, using my start and your end... On 12/3/2010 7:25 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> I am not sure I follow how this would "work". >> (Color me a confused participant.) >> On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in >> IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved block. > > Because you don't want existing IPv6 sites to renumber to deploy LISP? Given that IPv6 allows multi-numbering, and that there are simply very few IPv6 sites, it seems simpler to just not allow it, but see below and maybe I am still confused. > This is not true. The mapping database tells you if the destination > address is a LISP site or not. And if the destination is not a LISP > site, you want to forward packets natively directly to the non-LISP site > (no PITR involved here). If you turn the knob on, here is the algorithm: > > (1) If the destination is in the /16 block, send a map-request. > (2) If the destination is not in the /16 block, send packet natively to > non-LISP site. > > Dino So, suppose a site (A) turns the knob on. And some other site (B) is using LISP, but not numbered from the prefix. Then traffic from A to B gets forwarded as non-LISP. Since The addresses being used for B are actually LISP EIDs, this traffic then has to find a PITR in order to get properly tunneled to the site. There is a way out of this. All LISP IPv6 sites not from the block could be required to continue advertising their LISP prefix in BGP. This would mean that they don't get as much advantage (since most folks won't treat them as LISP... Seems like a bad trade. I will assume that was not your intention. then: Consequence: Traffic to LISP sites not within the prefix (early IPv6 adopters who get persuaded to use LISP) from efficient LISP adopters (who want the knob turned on), will have to take the long path through the PITR. This seems counter-productive. Obviously, we can not stop people from doing this. If sites like B are not rare, then no one will be willing to turn on the knob, at which point there is no point in having allocated the prefix. The prefix allocation only makes sense if we expect most sites to be able to use that knob, and use it correctly, a lot more than merely "most" of the time. Yours, Joel From dino@cisco.com Fri Dec 3 21:56:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC3A3A6A37 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:56:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id piVd6PJ1T2Yh for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEAB3A659A for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:56:57 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAH1n+UyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACjMXGnB5sLhUgEhF6GDYMS X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,297,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="227449075" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2010 05:58:12 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (sjc-vpn5-929.cisco.com [10.21.91.161]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB45wCll008188; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 05:58:12 GMT Message-Id: <3E12DA6B-02B4-4DB0-B22F-439B0D243DFC@cisco.com> From: Dino Farinacci To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <4CF9C488.3080201@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 21:58:11 -0800 References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> <4CF9C488.3080201@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 04 Dec 2010 05:56:58 -0000 > Rephrasing below, using my start and your end... > > On 12/3/2010 7:25 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> I am not sure I follow how this would "work". >>> (Color me a confused participant.) >>> On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in >>> IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved >>> block. >> >> Because you don't want existing IPv6 sites to renumber to deploy >> LISP? > > Given that IPv6 allows multi-numbering, and that there are simply > very few IPv6 sites, it seems simpler to just not allow it, but see > below and maybe I am still confused. Understand now. Thanks. >> This is not true. The mapping database tells you if the destination >> address is a LISP site or not. And if the destination is not a LISP >> site, you want to forward packets natively directly to the non-LISP >> site >> (no PITR involved here). If you turn the knob on, here is the >> algorithm: >> >> (1) If the destination is in the /16 block, send a map-request. >> (2) If the destination is not in the /16 block, send packet >> natively to >> non-LISP site. >> >> Dino > > So, suppose a site (A) turns the knob on. And some other site (B) > is using LISP, but not numbered from the prefix. > Then traffic from A to B gets forwarded as non-LISP. Since The > addresses being used for B are actually LISP EIDs, this traffic then > has to find a PITR in order to get properly tunneled to the site. Got it. > There is a way out of this. All LISP IPv6 sites not from the block > could be required to continue advertising their LISP prefix in BGP. > This would mean that they don't get as much advantage (since most > folks won't treat them as LISP... > Seems like a bad trade. I will assume that was not your intention. > then: Right, not my intention. > Consequence: Traffic to LISP sites not within the prefix (early IPv6 > adopters who get persuaded to use LISP) from efficient LISP adopters > (who want the knob turned on), will have to take the long path > through the PITR. > > This seems counter-productive. Agree. > Obviously, we can not stop people from doing this. > If sites like B are not rare, then no one will be willing to turn on > the knob, at which point there is no point in having allocated the > prefix. The prefix allocation only makes sense if we expect most > sites to be able to use that knob, and use it correctly, a lot more > than merely "most" of the time. Agree. So we can't predict the future, so we can't decide if the new block is worth it. But what the block does help with is that PITRs can advertise one prefix and as new sites come on to LISP with EID-prefixes in this block, the PITRs don't need to change. Dino > > Yours, > Joel From luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de Sat Dec 4 11:22:10 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD823A6988 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:22:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rz+ffJgDfhco for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.220.252]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010F33A6977 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:22:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.101] (p4FC24D9E.dip.t-dialin.net [79.194.77.158]) by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1356E70015AD; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:23:26 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <3E12DA6B-02B4-4DB0-B22F-439B0D243DFC@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:23:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <039C96CA-70E5-4FD9-9C47-15A03B87D5BB@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> <4CF9C488.3080201@joelhalpern.com> <3E12DA6B-02B4-4DB0-B22F-439B0D243DFC@cisco.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 04 Dec 2010 19:22:10 -0000 On Dec 4, 2010, at 6:58 , Dino Farinacci wrote: >> Rephrasing below, using my start and your end... >>=20 >> On 12/3/2010 7:25 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>> I am not sure I follow how this would "work". >>>> (Color me a confused participant.) >>>> On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in >>>> IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved = block. >>>=20 >>> Because you don't want existing IPv6 sites to renumber to deploy = LISP? >>=20 >> Given that IPv6 allows multi-numbering, and that there are simply = very few IPv6 sites, it seems simpler to just not allow it, but see = below and maybe I am still confused. >=20 > Understand now. Thanks. IMHO, The multi-numbering can be very useful for incremental deployment.=20= If a site A is in the 2001/16 space instead of renumber the network in = the LISP/16 or instead of setup a PITR for its prefix it can just ask = for a prefix in the LISP/16 and start deploying LISP in its network. If = everything works smoothly and LISP gives advantages to that site it will = be natural to drop the old 2001/16 prefix and use only the LISP/16 = prefix without disruption. This makes me realize that if we finally ask for the LISP/16 we should = include in the deployment draft text that explains how this LISP/16 can = be deployed. Luigi =20= From dino@cisco.com Sat Dec 4 11:40:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3997E3A69F4 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:40:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5VC8uiuanqoq for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE6D3A6B0C for ; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:39:53 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAKMn+kyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACjLnGkQ5ozhUkEhF+GD4MT X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,299,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="630831815" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2010 19:41:13 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.124] (sjc-vpn3-825.cisco.com [10.21.67.57]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB4JfDNu015141; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:41:13 GMT Message-Id: From: Dino Farinacci To: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <039C96CA-70E5-4FD9-9C47-15A03B87D5BB@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:41:12 -0800 References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> <4CF9C488.3080201@joelhalpern.com> <3E12DA6B-02B4-4DB0-B22F-439B0D243DFC@cisco.com> <039C96CA-70E5-4FD9-9C47-15A03B87D5BB@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 04 Dec 2010 19:40:21 -0000 Definitely a good point Luigi. Dino On Dec 4, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2010, at 6:58 , Dino Farinacci wrote: > >>> Rephrasing below, using my start and your end... >>> >>> On 12/3/2010 7:25 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>>> I am not sure I follow how this would "work". >>>>> (Color me a confused participant.) >>>>> On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in >>>>> IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved >>>>> block. >>>> >>>> Because you don't want existing IPv6 sites to renumber to deploy >>>> LISP? >>> >>> Given that IPv6 allows multi-numbering, and that there are simply >>> very few IPv6 sites, it seems simpler to just not allow it, but >>> see below and maybe I am still confused. >> >> Understand now. Thanks. > > IMHO, The multi-numbering can be very useful for incremental > deployment. > If a site A is in the 2001/16 space instead of renumber the network > in the LISP/16 or instead of setup a PITR for its prefix it can just > ask for a prefix in the LISP/16 and start deploying LISP in its > network. If everything works smoothly and LISP gives advantages to > that site it will be natural to drop the old 2001/16 prefix and use > only the LISP/16 prefix without disruption. > > This makes me realize that if we finally ask for the LISP/16 we > should include in the deployment draft text that explains how this > LISP/16 can be deployed. > > Luigi From ljakab@ac.upc.edu Sun Dec 5 04:17:10 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CA03A6B0D for ; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 04:17:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ndfCtV0O2B6 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 04:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw.ac.upc.edu (gw.ac.upc.es [147.83.30.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574EA3A6B07 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 04:17:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.34] (57.Red-217-125-162.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [217.125.162.57]) by gw.ac.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269776B0249; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 13:18:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4CFB830E.6040905@ac.upc.edu> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:18:22 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lor=E1nd_Jakab?= Organization: UPC/BarcelonaTech MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Iannone References: <8D62DEB5-0E6E-4F4C-9F8F-4E383E6447A2@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> <618DC346-1483-482A-95FA-78E4DC749822@cisco.com> <4CF92BBE.8080109@joelhalpern.com> <71172513-601D-4781-A626-998ADC9CD16E@cisco.com> <4CF9C488.3080201@joelhalpern.com> <3E12DA6B-02B4-4DB0-B22F-439B0D243DFC@cisco.com> <039C96CA-70E5-4FD9-9C47-15A03B87D5BB@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <039C96CA-70E5-4FD9-9C47-15A03B87D5BB@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] a /16 of IPv6 for LISP EID X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 05 Dec 2010 12:17:10 -0000 On 12/04/2010 08:23 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > On Dec 4, 2010, at 6:58 , Dino Farinacci wrote: > >>> Rephrasing below, using my start and your end... >>> >>> On 12/3/2010 7:25 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>>> I am not sure I follow how this would "work". >>>>> (Color me a confused participant.) >>>>> On the one hand, it is not clear to me why it would be valuable in >>>>> IPv6 to permit LISP EIDs from some block other than the reserved block. >>>> Because you don't want existing IPv6 sites to renumber to deploy LISP? >>> Given that IPv6 allows multi-numbering, and that there are simply very few IPv6 sites, it seems simpler to just not allow it, but see below and maybe I am still confused. >> Understand now. Thanks. > IMHO, The multi-numbering can be very useful for incremental deployment. > If a site A is in the 2001/16 space instead of renumber the network in the LISP/16 or instead of setup a PITR for its prefix it can just ask for a prefix in the LISP/16 and start deploying LISP in its network. If everything works smoothly and LISP gives advantages to that site it will be natural to drop the old 2001/16 prefix and use only the LISP/16 prefix without disruption. > > This makes me realize that if we finally ask for the LISP/16 we should include in the deployment draft text that explains how this LISP/16 can be deployed. Will do, thanks. But maybe we should wait until it's allocated. -Lori > Luigi > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From terry.manderson@icann.org Wed Dec 22 16:35:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865C33A6AD2 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:35:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JL1IrxJYUuOj for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:35:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EAF3A67FA for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:35:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:37:20 -0800 From: Terry Manderson To: "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:37:19 -0800 Thread-Topic: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item Thread-Index: AcuSh1OKohUjOsPUSkqXldXCU7QmSQAAN+FtA+xWvho= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 23 Dec 2010 00:35:21 -0000 All, Wearing my WG co-chair hat with sprigs of holiday tinsel. I note that there has been no objections against draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 becoming a workgroup item, and all responses have been supportive of the adoption in this 14 day call. I am closing the call here and declare consensus for the adoption. I have further noted the individuals who have said they will review and I will be calling on them from time to time to ensure that review does occur. Can the authors, as soon as time permits, please post a new WG version as appropriate. Happy Holidays, Terry (& Joel) From dino@cisco.com Wed Dec 22 16:56:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCD23A6A06 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:56:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P8vA6Nnjd1c7 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:56:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377D73A6949 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:56:00 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEACstEk2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkJnOoBZs9hUkEhGWGHoMd X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,216,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="236784808" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Dec 2010 00:57:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (sjc-vpn6-908.cisco.com [10.21.123.140]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBN0vxgn021114; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:57:59 GMT Message-Id: <14399681-C9C2-40B3-955E-F4C0E8B19910@cisco.com> From: Dino Farinacci To: Terry Manderson In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:57:58 -0800 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 23 Dec 2010 00:56:01 -0000 > All, > > Wearing my WG co-chair hat with sprigs of holiday tinsel. I am not getting a good visual here. ;-) > I note that there has been no objections against draft-schudel-lisp- > mib-00 > becoming a workgroup item, and all responses have been supportive of > the > adoption in this 14 day call. I am closing the call here and declare > consensus for the adoption. > > I have further noted the individuals who have said they will review > and I > will be calling on them from time to time to ensure that review does > occur. > > Can the authors, as soon as time permits, please post a new WG > version as > appropriate. > > Happy Holidays, > > Terry (& Joel) Want to take this moment to thank the chairs and all the people involved in the working group for the effort they have put into LISP in 2010. And to wish all of you and your families a Happy Holiday. See you in 2011, Dino > > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From gschudel@cisco.com Fri Dec 24 07:47:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B16C3A696A for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:47:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eFGdZw39JEQC for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098333A695F for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:47:20 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,223,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="394112949" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Dec 2010 15:49:23 +0000 Received: from gschudel-mac-2.local ([10.21.167.75]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBOFnMZW012121; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:49:23 GMT Message-ID: <4D14C132.3060508@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:50:10 -0800 From: Gregg Schudel Organization: cisco.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lisp@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 as a work group item X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 24 Dec 2010 15:47:21 -0000 On 12/22/10 4:37 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: > All, > > Wearing my WG co-chair hat with sprigs of holiday tinsel. > > I note that there has been no objections against draft-schudel-lisp-mib-00 > becoming a workgroup item, and all responses have been supportive of the > adoption in this 14 day call. I am closing the call here and declare > consensus for the adoption. > > I have further noted the individuals who have said they will review and I > will be calling on them from time to time to ensure that review does occur. > > Can the authors, as soon as time permits, please post a new WG version as > appropriate. Thank you Terry. We will complete the posting mostly likely right after the new year. > > Happy Holidays, You too! cheers gregg From hannu.flinck@nsn.com Thu Dec 30 04:15:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1D13A6768 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:15:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lt-jhnIQqKRb for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:15:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9363A63EC for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oBUCHruF028163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:17:53 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oBUCHoeQ005570 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:17:53 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.25]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:17:53 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:17:52 +0200 Message-ID: <26E5D1C5D5365D47B147E5E62FC735850200CF17@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ETR selection? Thread-Index: AcuoG5SnDRvmqq6TSx+hMgOyG+Z/PA== From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2010 12:17:53.0205 (UTC) FILETIME=[95443650:01CBA81B] Subject: [lisp] ETR selection? X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 30 Dec 2010 12:15:51 -0000 Hello Vince and others I read LISP Map server draft (version 6) and was wondering the following: In section 4.3 Map-Server Processing it is mentioned that "...the Map-Server verifies that the destination EID matches an EID-prefix for which it has one or more registered ETRs, then re-encapsulates and forwards the now-Encapsulated Map-Request to a matching ETR." So, there is a set of ETR matching the EID-prefix out of which a one ETR is chosen. What would be the basis for selecting the target ETR out of the set of matching ETRs?=20 Best regards Hannu=20 From jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 30 09:08:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90C23A67D3 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:08:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.446 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.153, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kWIkKgJT0CR0 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C0C3A67AE for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id F063B6BE5B6; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:10:08 -0500 (EST) To: hannu.flinck@nsn.com, lisp@ietf.org Message-Id: <20101230171008.F063B6BE5B6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: [lisp] ETR selection? X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 30 Dec 2010 17:08:05 -0000 > From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" > In section 4.3 Map-Server Processing it is mentioned that "...the > Map-Server verifies that the destination EID matches an EID-prefix > for which it has one or more registered ETRs, then re-encapsulates > and forwards the now-Encapsulated Map-Request to a matching ETR." > So, there is a set of ETR matching the EID-prefix out of which a one > ETR is chosen. What would be the basis for selecting the target ETR > out of the set of matching ETRs? Off the top of my head, and as a personal opinion, I would assume it would be a random selection (although it need not be); remember, the only packets that should be going through the path you are asking about are Map-Requests, and all ETRs for a given EID block should return the same data in the Map-Reply, so it should not matter which ETR the Map-Request is sent to. The only reason I can think of to prefer the algorithm of 'pick one at pseudo-random' is that if an ETR fails, it may take a minute or two for the MS to notice that the ETR is down, and drop it; during that time period, if the Map-Request is retransmitted, if it's sent to the same (down) ETR that's not much good. A circulating sweep through all the ETRs for a given EID block would be just as good (and cheaper to implement), so maybe that's the way to go, actually. I may have missed something, though - anyone else have a different view? Noel