Subject: [DMM] feedback: draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-03

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:26:56 +0300

Hi,

while writing my dissertation related to the topic, I couldn't help 
spotting few issues from draft-perkins-dmm-matrix-03 in section 3.7, 
"HIP/LISP".

I realize that you're tight on space especially in Table 1 but I think 
HIP and LISP focus on different problems, and it would be useful to 
separate them into different sections. HIP focuses on mobility and 
security where as LISP tries to improve routing scalability. Also, the 
standardized HIP is deployed on end-hosts where as LISP is deployed on 
edge routers.

HIP is "backhaul" friendly as it's deployed to the end-host. When an 
application on a HIP-capable host communicates with HIP-incapable host, 
it just uses regular IP addresses instead of HITs. Thus, no proxy is 
needed and the following statement is incorrect in section 3.7:

   4.  backhaul friendly: HIP/LISP both use routing address for packet
        routing; there is no centralized anchor point in the data plane.
        But for communication to other hosts which are not located in the
        HIP/LISP domain, a gateway function is needed and the data
        traffic is constrained to travel through the gateway.

As an author of RFC6317, I'd like to state that it is not widely used 
yet (if at all) and it is completely optional. The legacy-compatible way 
of using HIP as specified RFC5338 is the prevalent way of using HIP. So 
I would say that the following statement about HIP is incorrect (and the 
"may" statement was further incorrectly applied in table 1):

    5.  app friendly: LISP does not require application modification.
        HIP may require application modification [RFC 6317].

There is something wrong with XML as points 7 and 8 are somehow convoluted:

    7.  Local routing: For communication within the HIP/LISP domain, HIP/
        LISP can support local routing since the routing is based on
        routing prefix instead of host indentification and there is no
        cent

    8.  ralized anchor point.

Regarding to point 7, HIP can route local traffic locally as it is an 
end-to-end protocol.

Finally, the table 1 in section "Matrix Comparing Existing Approaches 
for DMM" should be adjusted according to my corrections:

backhaul friendly: should be Y for HIP (and probably N for LISP)

app friendly: should be Y for HIP and Y for LISP

local routing: should be Y for HIP (and Y for LISP, at least according 
to the explaining text)

Thanks!