Hi Ross, Comments inline.
ciao L. > On 01 Jun 2015, at 17:35, Ross Callon <[email protected]> wrote: > > >… > > There still are many, economical and technical, open questions related to > > the deployment of such infrastructure. > > > > The purpose of the draft is to document what we know about the impact on > > the existing Internet. > > The right thing to do is to delete at once that sentence, because it does > > not document any impact. > > I think that this sentence is a good summary of the overall document, and > thus I think that it is valuable to leave it in. As a summary, I could see it > making sense towards the end of the document, although there doesn’t seem to > be anywhere towards the end to put it. > > Thinking about this a bit more: What is essentially being proposed with LISP > is a new addressing and routing paradigm for the core of the Internet, and > the Internet is rapidly becoming pretty much the control plane for the world. > As such, if there are potentially issues then I think that we have a > responsibility to say so. In this case it is pretty clear reading through > this document, or just thinking through the issues and reading the full set > of LISP documents, that there are both economic and technical “open questions > related to the deployment of such infrastructure” and as such I think that we > need to explicitly say this. > > I see your point, what about the following sentence: LISP comprises both an tunnel-based data plane and a distributed control plane for the Internet, hence, being more than simple encapsulation technology, open questions related to the deployment of such infrastructure remains. > >… > > The overhead related to OAM traffic (for example, for liveness > > detection) is not known. > > > > Rather it would go in section 5.2 as a separate item. > > I think that putting this as a separate item in section 5.2 makes sense. > > Agreed > > >… > > NEW > > The above assumptions are in line with [RFC7215] and current LISP > > deployments, however, such situation may change in the long term. > > For example, the first bullet above assumes that only edge networks > > already owning their address space (current PI address owners) will > > switch to LISP. Speculating whether and how PA owning edge networks > > might switch to LISP was outside the scope. Nevertheless, [KIF13] and > > [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space > > sizes, still showing results that are consistent and equivalent to the > > above assumptions. > > > > What if instead it is explicated in the first bullet: > > > > EID-to-RLOC mappings follow the same prefix size as the current > > BGP routing infrastructure (using a PI model); > > I think that the point here is not just that it is following the PI model, > but that it is assuming a scale that only the current PI’s are going to use > LISP (and therefore be in the mapping table). How about: > > > EID-to-RLOC mappings follow the same prefix size as the current > > BGP routing infrastructure (current PI addresses only) Agreed > > Thanks, Ross > > From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:34 AM > To: Ross Callon > Cc: LISP mailing list list > Subject: re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02 > > Hi Ross, > > thanks for your review. > > I think that your comments can be easily accommodate. > Have a look inline. > > ciao > > L. > > > > > On 27 May 2015, at 23:46, Ross Callon <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > The document seems much improved. I still have three issues which should be > corrected before the document is ready for publication. > > > Section 1, last paragraph, second sentence. This currently reads: > > There still are many, economical rather than technical, open questions > related to > the deployment of such infrastructure. > > However, it is clear that there are both economical and technical issues. As > examples of technical issues, later in the document (section 5.2) talks about > the difficulty in troubleshooting, and states “…the major issue that years of > LISP experimentation have shown is the difficulty of troubleshooting. When > there is a problem in the network, it is hard to pin-point the reason as the > operator only has a partial view of the network”. This is of course one > example of a technical issue (another related one is my next comment below). > Thus I think that it would be correct to change this sentence to state: > > There still are many, economical and technical, open questions related to > the deployment of such infrastructure. > > > The purpose of the draft is to document what we know about the impact on the > existing Internet. > The right thing to do is to delete at once that sentence, because it does not > document any impact. > > > > > This might have been lost in the vigorous discussion of other issues which > occurred during the first WGLC, however, my comments from the previous WGLC > included one point which has not been addressed. This comment was: > > > Finally, perhaps I missed it but I didn’t see any discussion of the > > volume of overhead related to OAM traffic used for liveness detection > > (the need for ITR’s to determine the reachability of ETR’s). > > I still think that we need discussion of the overhead related to OAM traffic. > If this is not known, it might be appropriate simply to add to the second > paragraph of section 1 something along the lines of: > > The overhead related to OAM traffic (for example, for liveness detection) > is not known. > > > Rather it would go in section 5.2 as a separate item. > > > > Also, in section 3, first bullet after the first paragraph, the document > currently states: > > o EID-to-RLOC mappings follow the same prefix size as the current > BGP routing infrastructure; > > In email in our earlier discussion Florin Coras stated: > > > The goal our experiments was to understand the > > performance of LISP map-caches if edge > > networks already owning their address space (PI address owners) were to > > switch to LISP. Speculating if and how PA owning edge networks are to > > switch to LISP was outside the scope. > > I think that these two points are saying the same thing. However, I am not > sure whether most (or all) readers will understand that the bullet point in > the current document implies the point that Florin made in his email. We > could clarify this in the next paragraph as follows: > > OLD > The above assumptions are inline with [RFC7215] and current LISP > deployments, however, such situation may change in the long term. > Nevertheless, [KIF13] and [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space > sizes, still showing results that are consitent and equivalent to the > above assumptions. > > NEW > The above assumptions are in line with [RFC7215] and current LISP > deployments, however, such situation may change in the long term. > For example, the first bullet above assumes that only edge networks > already owning their address space (current PI address owners) will > switch to LISP. Speculating whether and how PA owning edge networks > might switch to LISP was outside the scope. Nevertheless, [KIF13] and > [CDLC] explore different EDI prefix space > sizes, still showing results that are consistent and equivalent to the > above assumptions. > > What if instead it is explicated in the first bullet: > > EID-to-RLOC mappings follow the same prefix size as the current > BGP routing infrastructure (using a PI model); > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Ross > > > From: lisp [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Luigi Iannone > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:44 PM > To: LISP mailing list list > Cc: Joel Halpern Direct > Subject: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02 > > Hi All, > > the authors of the LISP Impact document > [https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02.txt > <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02.txt>] > submitted a new version of the draft and requested the Work Group Last Call. > > This email starts a WG Last Call, to end May 28th, 2015. > > Please review this updated WG document and let the WG know if you agree that > it is ready for handing to the AD. > If you have objections, please state your reasons why, and explain what it > would take to address your concerns. > > Thanks > > Luigi & Joel >
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
