On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > It appears to me that there are contexts in which it is likely that ILA is > useful. > > Using the example of the progression of LISP, I have concern with the > current approach of NOT spelling out how and where it would be used. LISP > started out as experimental in significant part because it was not clear > where it would be useful. We re now progressing it to PS with a clear > context. And that context is NOT Internet-wide deployment for Internet > scaling. Because that deployment problem is REALLY challenging. > > As such, if ILA wants to either be developed for the data center context or > be developed as an interesting experiment across a range of potential uses, > I can not object. > > I do have problems moving it forward towards standards track for some > unspecified but general use in its current form. The dependence of the data > plane protocol on the information distribution is so strong that I do not > see how the general case can be treated. > Hi Joel,
Intended status is listed as informational if that helps. I tend to think that the relationship between an ILA data plane and control plane is analogous to the relationship between the IP protocol and routing protocols. Yes, there is a strong dependency on having a control plane, but mandating a specific control plane as part of the core protocol reduces flexibility and extensibility. Tom > Yours, > Joel > > > On 5/13/17 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> At the Chicago WG meeting I made a request that ILA be taken up as a >> WG item in int-area. The WG chairs and AD requested that we raise a >> discussion on the list about what else is needed to be done for ILA >> (Identifier Locator Addressing draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-04). The >> question was also raised if int-area is the right WG for ILA or if it >> should have a BOF. >> >> The current draft of ILA describes the data plane and addressing, a >> model for ILA for ILA routing and network topology, several use case >> scenarios on how ILA might be applied, a format for identifiers to >> allow different types of identifiers and checksum neutral mapping. As >> I mentioned we intend to make the last one optional so that >> administrators can choose how structure the 64 bit identifiers as they >> see fit-- this will be reflected in the next version of the draft. >> >> The draft explicitly does not define a specific control plane (e.g. >> routing protocol) for ILA and I don't think that it should. IMO ILA >> would be better served to allow various methods that are protocol >> generic where ILA could be a use case of those mechanisms. For >> instance, draft-lapukhov-bgp-ila-afi-02 describes and extension for >> BGP. Similarly, if a protocol agnostic control plane is developed in >> IDEAS or in nvo3, then ILA could be one use case for those. I would >> think the control plane seems more appropriate to be in routing area >> than int-area. >> >> As for what is still missing in the core ILA draft, besides making >> typed identifiers optional, I think it is fairly complete for the data >> plane description. It is being deployed in a least on datacenter for >> network virtualization, and it is being discussed as part of a >> solution to support IP mobility (see 5GandIP discussions). >> >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
