From hannu.flinck@nsn.com Tue May 18 07:16:47 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 955D23A6C6C for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:16:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] 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 IIiTPfqDB118 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA953A6B77 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 07:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o4IEEpq6011694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 May 2010 16:14:52 +0200 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o4IEEp9F015454; Tue, 18 May 2010 16:14:51 +0200 Received: from FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.25]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 May 2010 16:14:51 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:14:49 +0300 Message-ID: <26E5D1C5D5365D47B147E5E62FC73585B686D6@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <92F75679-A988-4C42-BBB4-FCD563D887B8@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-01 Thread-Index: AcrAtStBNbcLk5GGRw6GvwFJtP4KaQ10JKKA References: <92F75679-A988-4C42-BBB4-FCD563D887B8@cisco.com> From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "ext Darrel Lewis" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2010 14:14:51.0110 (UTC) FILETIME=[7AE80860:01CAF694] Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-01 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: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:16:47 -0000 Hello Darrel and others I haven't seen much comments or discussion about the interworking draft. Obviously much has changed since March 11 in the base line LISP (new canonical address format useful for the interworking, changes in the control plane message content etc.). All of those are of course not reflected in version-01 of the interworking draft. Still, I have some basic questions about how the LISP interworking is intended to work. I believe getting interworking clear and functional would help a lot the base line LISP protocol as well.=20 It is said in the interworking draft v01 that: In Section 5.1 "PITR EID announcements" that=20 "A key part of PITR functionality is to advertise routes for highly-aggregated EID prefixes into part of the global routing system." Then, on the other hand, for case 3 "LISP site to non-LISP site" interworking (page 5), the LISP site needs to know when not to encapsulate packets. This can be achieved by one of the two mechanisms: - checking if the destination of an IP packet is found to match a prefix from BGP routing table, then the site is reachable by the BGP core - if the destination address is not found in the mapping database. But isn't PITR announcing the aggregated EID to the BGP system as per section 5.1? Meaning that the first test will always pass, there will be a match in the BGP routing table? Or is there something hidden behind the "parts of global routing system" wording, something like to the direction that aggregated EIDs MUST not be announced to LISP sites? If so, this should be said more clearly, ... And BGP community attribute defined... With the same logic, isn't it so that the LISP-R site will only use LISP tunneling only when communicating with LISP-NR? So all other cases LISP is not used at all. Only the BGP prefix check is done that indicates not to use LISP (and possibly the mapping database check is needed)? This is because the prefix is there in the BGP system and thefore routable. Or if this is not the desired behavior as I think it is not, then both of the above tests (BGP prefix and the mapping system) need to be executed? Not either or? LISP-NAT LISP-NAT is stated to enable the interworking of non-LISP sites and LISP-NR sites by ensuring that the LISP-NR's site address are always routable. "inner" LISP-NR EID is translated to "outer" LISP-R value. I do not understand why would an ITR that performs the NATing LISP-encapsulate the packet to non-LISP site after the address translation. Both the source and destination are after address translation routable addresses, so why not just send the packet? And in fact as you can see encapsulating a packet with globally routable addresses is contradicting case 3 behavior as per section 2. The case for Proxy-egress tunnel router doesn't happen as the source address was translated to be routable in the LISP NAT. =20 Any clarification appreciated. =20 Best regards Hannu =20 =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: lisp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 >Behalf Of ext Darrel Lewis >Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 02:54 >To: lisp@ietf.org >Subject: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-01 > >All, > > >I have (finally) finished incorporating all the comments that=20 >I received, both on the list and privately, for the=20 >draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-01 submission posted to the list=20 >a few weeks ago. Thanks for all the great comments! > >While I can't post this to the directory until 3/22, I figured=20 >I'd send the text to the list now in case someone had comments=20 >before or during the upcoming WG meeting. > >Text of the draft and html diff from -00 attached. > >Thanks. > >-Darrel (on behalf of the other interworking authors: Dino,=20 >Dave, and Vince) > > From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon May 24 09:04:32 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 845043A6B33 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.483, BAYES_05=-1.11, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 iFwMSETo4LbX for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0BC3A6B05 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OGa8e-00024D-8i; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:04:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "lisp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software To: yakov@juniper.net X-Trac-Project: lisp Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:04:24 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/111 Message-ID: <056.ec8f02790caa5fcbbae985c1057f553c@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 111 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: yakov@juniper.net, lisp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] #111: Semantics of LSB X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:04:32 -0000 #111: Semantics of LSB ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: yakov@… | Owner: Type: technical | Status: new Priority: major | Component: draft-ietf-lisp Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- What is the semantics and use of LSB when RLOCs are anycast addresses ? -- Ticket URL: lisp LISP WG document issues From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon May 24 09:06:23 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 EFD1F3A6DAE for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 Pdj+7+4mls5F for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2A03A6BAD for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OGaAJ-0002DH-Jn; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "lisp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software To: yakov@juniper.net X-Trac-Project: lisp Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:06:07 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/112 Message-ID: <056.844e8bfd2de0805b00809cf0ab07f538@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 112 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: yakov@juniper.net, lisp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] #112: use of re-encapsulation is underspecified X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:06:23 -0000 #112: use of re-encapsulation is underspecified ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: yakov@… | Owner: Type: technical | Status: new Priority: major | Component: draft-ietf-lisp Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- The draft does not provide sufficient details on the use of re-encapsulation. The draft should either provide sufficient details on the use of re-encapsulation, or remove all references to re-encapsulation from the draft. -- Ticket URL: lisp LISP WG document issues From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon May 24 09:11:10 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 45E913A6D47 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:11:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 Yv52Ky7h2229 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE403A6C57 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OGaEz-0007SS-B8; Mon, 24 May 2010 09:10:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "lisp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software To: yakov@juniper.net X-Trac-Project: lisp Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:10:57 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/113 Message-ID: <056.b29368296d1e29e9759ce0ee81e0c335@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 113 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: yakov@juniper.net, lisp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] #113: inbound traffic engineering support with LISP X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:11:10 -0000 #113: inbound traffic engineering support with LISP ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: yakov@… | Owner: Type: technical | Status: new Priority: major | Component: draft-ietf-lisp Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- From Section 2: 4. Traffic engineering capabilities that can be performed by network elements and do not depend on injecting additional state into the routing system. This will fall out of the mechanism that is use to implement the EID/RLOC split (see Section 4). What is described in Section 4 is the use of LISP for outbound/forward traffic engineering. There is nothing in Section 4 that describes how LISP could be used to support inbound/return traffic engineering.Either (a) the draft should add specific details on how LISP supports inbound/return traffic engineering, or (b) the draft has to explicitly state that LISP support for traffic engineering is limited to the outbound/forward traffic only. -- Ticket URL: lisp LISP WG document issues From terry.manderson@icann.org Mon May 24 22:31:15 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 77A8F3A6D9F for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 22:31:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 XWbc+BFOGYxt for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 22:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9AB3A6DC7 for ; Mon, 24 May 2010 22:31:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Mon, 24 May 2010 22:27:53 -0700 From: Terry Manderson To: "lisp@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 22:27:52 -0700 Thread-Topic: More work needed I think. Thread-Index: Acr7ywVWOSgxN7KNpUGY2l5zzVrfcA== 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] More work needed I think. 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: Tue, 25 May 2010 05:31:16 -0000 WG Chair hat =3D on Hi Folks, I was just taking a look at the number of outstanding issues for the LISP W= G documents. I count 97 in total. ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/ ) Maastricht is barely 9 weeks away. So nearly 11 items would have to be addressed per week for the next 9 weeks for us to go to Maastricht in a healthy position. It would be great if we could have some action, be that discussion or otherwise, on these! Cheers, Terry From darlewis@cisco.com Tue May 25 10:34:02 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 A1FBA3A68A5 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:34:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 jQpSxPec0w4j for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5282A3A63D3 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,299,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="329200033" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2010 17:33:53 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn6-620.cisco.com (sjc-vpn6-620.cisco.com [10.21.122.108]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4PHXq8Q022714; Tue, 25 May 2010 17:33:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Darrel Lewis In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:34:48 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E4C4500-8D16-44E3-9496-E30160CC0355@cisco.com> References: To: Terry Manderson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] More work needed I think. 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: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:34:02 -0000 Hi Terry, I've been working with the co-authors in building responses to the many = issues raised. We plan to start answering these via the list next week. = So hopefully we can get a -08 draft for review by the group well before = Maastricht. -Darrel On May 24, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: > WG Chair hat =3D on >=20 > Hi Folks, >=20 > I was just taking a look at the number of outstanding issues for the = LISP WG > documents. I count 97 in total. ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/ ) >=20 > Maastricht is barely 9 weeks away. So nearly 11 items would have to be > addressed per week for the next 9 weeks for us to go to Maastricht in = a > healthy position. >=20 > It would be great if we could have some action, be that discussion or > otherwise, on these! >=20 > Cheers, > Terry >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From terry.manderson@icann.org Tue May 25 23:45:56 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 65E463A6889 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 23:45:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 6cdjw9pGRMVi for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 23:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09803A688C for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 23:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Tue, 25 May 2010 23:45:47 -0700 From: Terry Manderson To: Darrel Lewis Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 23:45:44 -0700 Thread-Topic: [lisp] More work needed I think. Thread-Index: Acr8Msm5MszbvwGdR22oeSvKe+iEogAbEbCh Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1E4C4500-8D16-44E3-9496-E30160CC0355@cisco.com> 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 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [lisp] More work needed I think. 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: Wed, 26 May 2010 06:45:56 -0000 Thanks Darrel! .. I appreciate the effort and I am certainly looking forward to next week! Cheers Terry On 26/05/10 3:34 AM, "Darrel Lewis" wrote: > Hi Terry, >=20 > I've been working with the co-authors in building responses to the many i= ssues > raised. We plan to start answering these via the list next week. So > hopefully we can get a -08 draft for review by the group well before > Maastricht. >=20 > -Darrel > On May 24, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: >=20 >> WG Chair hat =3D on >>=20 >> Hi Folks, >>=20 >> I was just taking a look at the number of outstanding issues for the LIS= P WG >> documents. I count 97 in total. ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/ ) >>=20 >> Maastricht is barely 9 weeks away. So nearly 11 items would have to be >> addressed per week for the next 9 weeks for us to go to Maastricht in a >> healthy position. >>=20 >> It would be great if we could have some action, be that discussion or >> otherwise, on these! >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Terry >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 From olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be Sun May 30 12:21:51 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 F41333A6403 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 12:21:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 RKmXcXHohZr0 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 12:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D673A63D3 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 12:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mbpobo.local (ip-80-236-229-202.dsl.scarlet.be [80.236.229.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DFB2ECBAD; Sun, 30 May 2010 21:21:16 +0200 (CEST) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 smtp2.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 5DFB2ECBAD DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1275247276; bh=9jw/pmY6mrd0KEQOewG7X7a8MjaYTviCd7E04//sFvM=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LZWy8W8DChgj1FXmk+IlfyrRCmXt6FOfLklzBY3xOGzCpkIdxg1JVbwUzWZ29i8xv xdJvwYKrhDPb3nH+E4eKdNgeHaBebDEIQ7bTuD/bn/kv72oRnxBSL4YvvntvEcr1jX rT+St6EOGvByvNspmlLMpaMy6nEfq3pedfA8weNY= Message-ID: <4C02BAAC.3070707@uclouvain.be> Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 21:21:16 +0200 From: Olivier Bonaventure User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lisp issue tracker References: <056.b29368296d1e29e9759ce0ee81e0c335@tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <056.b29368296d1e29e9759ce0ee81e0c335@tools.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96-exp at smtp-2.sipr-dc.ucl.ac.be X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated, X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 5DFB2ECBAD.00000 X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] #113: inbound traffic engineering support with LISP X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be 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, 30 May 2010 19:21:51 -0000 Yakov, > #113: inbound traffic engineering support with LISP > ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- > Reporter: yakov@… | Owner: > Type: technical | Status: new > Priority: major | Component: draft-ietf-lisp > Severity: - | Keywords: > ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- > From Section 2: > > 4. Traffic engineering capabilities that can be performed by > network elements and do not depend on injecting additional > state into the routing system. This will fall out of the > mechanism that is use to implement the EID/RLOC split (see Section 4). > > What is described in Section 4 is the use of LISP for outbound/forward > traffic engineering. There is nothing in Section 4 that describes how LISP > could be used to support inbound/return traffic engineering.Either (a) the > draft should add specific details on how LISP supports inbound/return > traffic engineering, or (b) the draft has to explicitly state that LISP > support for traffic engineering is limited to the outbound/forward traffic > only. AFAIK, the BGP specification does not explain how to perform traffic engineering. For LISP, I propose to add a reference to a paper that describes one possible solution for both inbound and outbound te http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/interdomain-traffic-engineering-locatoridentifier-separation-context This reference could close this ticket. Olivier