Hi floks, I support Dimitri's position.
Furthermore, sorry in case I missed it but I would really like to have an answer on Jonne's point regarding RRG conclusions and decisions regarding LISP. I would guess that the answer will have links to the points raised by Dimitri and which, IINM, were the controversial part of the last explisp BOF. -- Greg > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de > PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri > Envoyé : mercredi 21 janvier 2009 11:55 > À : David Meyer; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : RE: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the > IESG as to whetheraWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP > > Dave, > > The task consisting in discovering by experimentation > architectural fit (wrt initial objectives) and complement > understanding wrt known challenges (mapping, caching, > loc.reachability, impact on traffic spatio-temporal > properties) is very different in nature than ensuring > interoperability among protocols, minimize operational > impact, and facilitate integration/deployability -> so > requiring different type of efforts with different timelines. > As a matter of fact, both types of activities are still > required imho. > > So the question - that is not administrative - boils down > imho to: can we exclusively concentrate on the LISP > protocol(s) specifics leaving the issue of our confidence on > the Loc/ID split and associated challenges open. That > question deserves imho a specific discussion that should > happen in the context of a BoF. > > Thanks, > -dimitri. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Meyer > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:08 PM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to > > whether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP > > > > > > Folks, > > > > The IESG would like to know whether people believe that > > we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the > > next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary. > > > > Here are the current facts on the ground: > > > > o We have fairly mature set of core drafts > > o There are a number of other (non-core) LISP drafts > > o Significant global deployment is underway > > o We have 2 (or more) implementations > > o We have been discussing a draft charter (see update below) > > > > The question is that I would like folks to respond to is > > "Should a WG be formed based on the draft agenda > > (see below), or should we have another BOF?" > > > > Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can > > close on these administrative issues. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dave > > -- > > > > LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) > > > > Last Modified: 2009-01-20 > > > > Chair(s): > > TBD > > > > Internet Area Director(s): > > TBD > > > > Routing Area Advisor: > > TBD > > > > Secretary(ies): > > TBD > > > > Mailing Lists: > > General Discussion: [email protected] > > > > Description of Working Group: > > > > LISP and companion documents (see below) are proposals that > respond to > > the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and > > Addressing Workshop [0]. The purpose of the BOF is to form > a working > > group whose charter (see below) is to work on the design on > the LISP > > base protocol [1], the LISP+ALT mapping system [2], LISP > Interworking > > [4] and LISP multicast [6]. The working group will encourage and > > support interoperable LISP implementations as well as defining > > requirements for alternate mapping systems. The Working > Group may also > > create EID-prefix assignment guidelines for RIRs, as well > as security > > profiles for the ALT (presumably using technology developed in the > > SIDR working group). > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > Mar 2010 Submit base LISP specification to the IESG for > > Experimental. > > > > Mar 2010 Submit base ALT specification to the IESG for > > Experimental. > > > > Mar 2010 Submit the LISP Interworking specification to the IESG > > for Experimental. > > > > June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Allocation and Routing > > of both EIDs and RLOCs to the IESG for Experimental. > > > > June 2010 Submit Recommendations for Securing the LISP Mapping > > System to the IESG for Experimental. > > > > July 2010 Submit LISP for Multicast Environments to the IESG for > > Experimental. > > > > Aug 2010 Re-charter or close. > > > > Internet-Drafts: > > draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt > > draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt > > draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt > > draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt > > > > Request For Comments: > > None > > > > > > References > > ---------- > > [0] Meyer, D. et. al., "Report from the IAB Workshop on > > Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984. > > > > [1] Farinacci, D. et. al., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol > > (LISP)", draft-farinacci-lisp-11.txt. > > > > [2] Fuller, V., et. al., "LISP Alternative Topology > > (LISP-ALT)", draft-fuller-lisp-alt-03.txt > > > > [3] Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation > > Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-00.txt. > > > > [4] Lewis, D., et. al., "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and > > IPv6", draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-02.txt. > > > > [5] Mathy, L., et. al., "LISP-DHT: Towards a DHT to map > > identifiers onto locators", draft-mathy-lisp-dht-00.txt. > > > > [6] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, > > "LISP for Multicast Environments", > > draft-farinacci-lisp-multicast-01.txt. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
