Hi Sharon, If I understand correctly this is a list of real deployments that clearly show that indeed there are a bunch of documents for which it makes totally sense to be moved to ST.
Am I correct? Ciao L. > On 15 Mar 2023, at 09:05, Sharon Barkai <sharon.bar...@getnexar.com> wrote: > > > A full solution project example hopefully all addressing, encapsulation, > mcast, and security items are in charter (adopted and wg last call) > > <image0.jpeg> > > > Cost reduction of infotainment data: > - Infotainment connected to Internet > - Using public OEM IP address space > - Vehicles toggle wifi/cellular RLOC > - Seamless to the Internet sessions > > Automotive Edge Compute Applications: > - Dynamic HdMapping while vehicles Driving > - Regional Ad-Hoc Datacenter while Parked > - Edge Geo Agents’ EIDs are based on H3 > - Vehicle (far-edge) AI EIDs are ephemeral > > The value: > - realtime automatic map generation, increase safety, reduced corner cases > - mobile edge location capacity multiplied by engaging available far-edge-ai > > > > --szb > Cell: +972.53.2470068 > WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 > >> On Mar 14, 2023, at 21:38, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Hi LISP WG, >>> >>> As for the subject, this email starts the discussion about: From >>> Experimental to ST: these are a bunch of RFC that may be considered to move >>> ST >>> >>> There are a few experimental RFCs which is worth to be considered to be >>> moved to standard track (if we have documented deployment experience), >>> namely: >>> >>> RFC 6832: Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and >>> Non-LISP Sites >>> RFC 8060: LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [This is largely used and >>> may be merged with 9306] >>> RFC 8111: Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT) >>> [The only scalable Mapping System so far…..] >> >> Agree. >> >>> Multicast can be another one work item. >>> RFC 6831: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast >>> Environments >>> RFC 8378: Signal-Free Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast >> >> The new draft that Prasad submitted this week makes it a trio with the above >> to. It addresses how to mix the functionality of 6831 and 8378 when there is >> a mix of native multicast and non-native multicast in the underlay. >> >> Dino >> >>> >>> Please send us back your thoughts. >>> >>> >>> Padma and Luigi >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
