Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
+1 Thank all for the insightful discussion that took place around this draft. Your feedback will be carefully considered to progress the work and we welcome any further comment/feedback/help. :-) ciao Luigi On 27 Nov. 2012, at 14:30 , Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote: I want to thank everyone who has provided feedback on this draft. Given the issues raised, I am sending the draft back to the LISP WG for additional work. I encourage folks interested in this draft to participate on the LISP mailing list. Regards, Brian On 11/13/12 9:45 AM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP EID Block' draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ lisp mailing list l...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp ___ lisp mailing list l...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Hi Roger, On 14 Nov. 2012, at 10:42 , Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP EID Block' draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space. I have to ask, who can request an netblock from this address space and from where? Who: whoever is willing to deploy LISP. Where: your RIR? I might be blind but I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere. The purpose of the document is not to create a new way to distribute prefixes with its own policies, rather to use the existing process but just creating a code point specific for LISP. Luigi -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Hi, thanks for the comments. Few answers inline. On 14 Nov. 2012, at 12:19 , SM s...@resistor.net wrote: At 06:45 13-11-2012, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP EID Block' draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be The document does not clearly define how the address space will be managed. This might end up being problematic in future. In Section 4: Too guarantee reachability from the Legacy Internet the prefix could There is a typo for Too. thanks, will fix. In Section 6: It is suggested to IANA to temporarily avoid allocating any other address block the same /12 prefix the EID /16 prefix belongs to. This is to accommodate future requests of EID space without fragmenting the EID addressing space. Shouldn't that be under IANA Considerations? Well, if we go along that road we should put the whole document in a single IANA Considerations Section. ;-) Actually the current IANA Considerations section states the same request but does not specify /12. You are right that it should be clearly stated, to make the document coherent. Will fix. thanks If in the future there will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to the current policies. Which policies does the above refer to? It refers to the IANA allocation policies. May be it could be changed in the following way: If in the future there will be need for a larger EID Block the address space adjacent the EID Block could be allocate by IANA according to its current allocation policies. Would that work? In Section 10: This document instructs the IANA to assign a /16 IPv6 prefix for use as the global LISP EID space using a hierarchical allocation as outlined in [RFC5226]. Who will be the delegated managers? I agree that this point has been not discussed thoroughly, the idea is not to create any new manager, rather to make ISPs (or whoever interested in deploying LISP) to request an EID address sub-block as they do with usual prefixes. Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], such space will be assigned only upon IETF Review. Well, this is standard, to have a reserved space we have to go through the (now called) IETF Review, which is what we are doing ;-) ciao Luigi The previous sentence mentions hierarchical allocation and the above sentence mentions IETF Review. It is not clear how assignments from this space will be made. Regards, -sm
Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
On 15 Nov. 2012, at 10:43 , Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote: Hi, I have to ask, who can request an netblock from this address space and from where? I might be blind but I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere. Good question. Will there be a central registry, or will parts of the space be delegated to i.e. LISP based ISPs? Hi Sander, no central registry has been ever discussed, was more about delegated the space to LISP ISPs. Luigi - Sander ___ lisp mailing list l...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Hi George, On 15 Nov. 2012, at 11:50 , George Michaelson ggm+i...@apnic.net wrote: I think this document isn't ready for IETF last call. We are open to any suggestion to make the document ready for it. ;-) I think the context of an experimental assignment which heads to distributing IPv6 addresses to end-entities, even if the experiment is not intended to be globally routable, poses questions about how the address management function is going to work. Can the working group be asked to discuss how this is meant to be interpreted in the light of RFC2050 based processes? It might avoid future pain if its clear how the IAB and the RIR understand these addresses and their management. The experiment has all the attributes of a general, wide-ranging address distribution and management activity. I haven't seen any substantive discussion of this in the WG mailing lists, and I'm worried this hasn't been documented, or understood. Well, clearly I am missing something. WOuld you mind be a bit more specific? Are you asking to have rough consensus on specific points? Which points? thanks Luigi cheers -George
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Hi Bert, On 15 Nov. 2012, at 11:55 , Bert Wijnen (IETF) berti...@bwijnen.net wrote: [snip] So it is not asking just a /16 but also asking for reservation of a /12. Pretty big space. And in the list of reasons, I mainly read that it is sufficiently large, but not much about why it needs to be this big. Why would a smaller allocation not be sufficient? Well, to keep it short, the WG felt that /16 is the right size, and that if the growth of LISP would be so important as to need a bigger space would be nice to have it contiguous (so implementations can just change the prefix length). Luigi Bert
Re: Proposed IETF 95 Date Change
On Jul 20, 2012, at 18:36 , Joel jaeggli wrote: On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote: The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95 scheduled for March 2016. Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is Easter. The IAOC is proposing IETF 95 be rescheduled for 20 - 25 March 2016 and would like feedback on those dates before making a decision. Comments appreciated to ietf@ietf.org by 6 August 2012. 20 march is palm sunday on the western calender. If one's a conflict presumably the other is too... True, but if I can choose I would say 20-25 is better... L. Ray Pelletier IETF Administrative Director
Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol
On Nov 2, 2011, at 23:23 , Templin, Fred L wrote: Thankfully, I missed most of the earlier threads related to this. But, on the subject of identifiers, Robin is right. What the IETF protocol known as LISP calls identifiers are actually IP addresses. And, IP addresses name *interfaces*; they do not name *end systems*. Same is true also of IRON. In LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) EID stands for Endpoint-ID. Isn't the interface the endpoint of the Internet communication pipe? AFAIR LISP never claims that an LEID identifies a host or a general end-system. Luigi Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robin Whittle Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:34 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol I wrote another explanation of why the LISP protocol does not involve a separate namespace for Identifiers - and so why it is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol. http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/lisp-not-loc-id/ This is a longer version of my arguments earlier in this thread because it assumes no knowledge of the LISP protocol or of the IRTF Routing Research Group work in recent years on scalable routing. Its good that the LISP protocol, Ivip and Iron are not Locator - Identifier Separation protocols: Overloading of Loc ID functions is good for hosts and should be maintained2010-06-22 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07017.html - Robin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP GSE
Robin, On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:45 , Robin Whittle wrote: [snip] you applied only to Luigi and anyone else to appears to be happy with referring to the LISP protocol as something like the Locator - Identifier Separation Protocol. Again, this is just your interpretation and not what I meant to say. Let me clarify. My only point, may be cynical, certainly arguable, is that I do not see LISP rename happening. Now please stop sending around mail with the message Luigi thinks that LISP is *the* loc/id separation protocol Thanks Luigi The both was not meant to include you - it applied to the two points which followed: assuming that LISP is not only a Loc/ID Separation protocol, but *the* Loc/ID Separation protocol. You wrote: Speaking just for myself, I have not assumed that LISP is the only identifier - locator separation protocol. Apologies if something that I wrote mistakenly gave that impression. I didn't get this impression. As you know, there are several identifier - locator separation architectures, with very different designs and characteristics. It would be inappropriate to claim that there is just one, or that one particular definition is the only possible interpretation. OK. In the thread which I think is best titled for this discussion: Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol, I suggested that GSE, HIP and now ILNP and lesser known RRG proposals definitely are Loc-ID Separation protocols. If no-one disputes this, then I think those who support the LISP protocol retaining its current name should argue persuasively either that the LISP protocol operates on similar enough principles to GSE, HIP and ILNP, or that the definition of Loc-ID Separation should be expanded to include the principles by which the LISP protocol works. I think the first option is unsupportable and that expanding the definition so far as to apply to the LISP protocol would render it largely meaningless. If such a redefinition was generally agreed to, I would continue to argue against it, since it would also apply to Ivip. The most fundamental principles of LISP, Ivip and IRON are similar - and I argue that they are entirely different to, contrary to, and incompatible with the principles on which GSE, HIP and ILNP operate. Indeed, the very definition of identity could range from something that looks very much just like another address (LISP, Mobile IP, HBA-based SHIM6) to new identifier concepts (HIP, CGAs) or even to DNS names. I think DNS could be regarded as a Locator - Identifier Separation protocol. However, it doesn't seem helpful to group it with GSE, HIP or ILNP, since these three apply to every host-to-host communication. DNS is not required for host-to-host communications, but it can be used to choose which host IP address(es) to communicate with. With the LISP protocol the hosts deal with IP addresses which embody both the ID and Loc functions, just as IPv4 and IPv6 works today. I think the same is true at the application level and perhaps the stack level, depending on which form of Mobile IP is used. My initial impression of the IPv6-only Hash Based Addressing RFC-5535 is that these 128 bit values function identically to today's IP addresses as far as the host stack and the routing system. They do not embody any purely ID functionality - so there must be some separate arrangement, implemented by applications and presumably suitable support in the stack, to work with a multi-homed host (so with multiple HBA addresses) on the basis of an Identifier which is presumably not an IP address. The most obvious way of doing this would be to use the host's DNS name as its Identifier. However, for this to be used for all communication, I think the responding host, receiving a packet from some novel IP address, would need to do some kind of reverse lookup in order to obtain a DNS name, and then another lookup of that to get locators, from which to choose from when sending its response. Otherwise, the recipient host must respond directly to the original packet's source IP address, without knowing for sure that this can be used as a locator for the host whose DNS or other form of Identifier is presumably in the application-level part of the original packet. So my initial impression of HBA is that it could be used to support a Locator - Identifier Separation protocol, with suitable application and stack changes, if the Identifier namespace was to be other than the DNS namespace, or if responding hosts were also expected to find all the Locators of a multi-homed originating host before replying. As far as I know, everyone agrees that HIP is a Locator - Identifier Separation protocol. I understand that HBA is a particular way of using CGA. As far as I know, CGA and/or HBA are examples of the sorts of mechanisms you could use in building a complete Locator - Identifier protocol, but which do not in
Re: The death John McCarthy
Hi, Like Jari and others I do not see the name as disrespectful and it is unrealistic to believe that the loc/ID speration protocol can be renamed. It has been around for more than 5 years it is just too late. On the other hand, the name can be considered an homage by itself. Luigi Iannone On Oct 28, 2011, at 09:07 , Hector wrote: Jari Arkko wrote: First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim that this is a generational thing. Well you shouldn't and my apology for stated that. I was informed off list it was an intentional tribute to the language. It was just one of those things where you saw something that caught your eye and only as a passing thought, don't these people know its a well known acronym? I think I saw there was some relationship, but thought about the long run usage of LISP in reference to this work might be confusing. In other words, should people refer to this work as LISP? Its rhetorical. I'm out. -- HLS ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP GSE
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:33 , Robin Whittle wrote: Hi Luigi, As I wrote in a recent message: Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70176.html HIP, which is a Locator-Identifier Separation protocol, dates from 2003, 8 years ago. However, HIP goes back to draft-moskowitz-hip-00 of May 2009. I should have mentioned GSE, which is also a Loc-ID Separation protocol. GSE goes back at least to March 1997: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-00 Four months later - 14 years ago - the next version had the title: Separating Identifiers and Locators in Addresses: An Analysis of the GSE Proposal for IPv6 GSE and HIP are both Locator-Identifier Separation protocols. LISP is not, since it operates on totally different principles. In referring to LISP as the loc/ID separation protocol, as you did: Like Jari and others I do not see the name as disrespectful and it is unrealistic to believe that the loc/ID separation protocol can be renamed. It has been around for more than 5 years it is just too late. it seems that you are both asserting and assuming that LISP is not only a Loc/ID Separation protocol, but *the* Loc/ID Separation protocol. Robin, this is your personal interpretation not what I said. Luigi It was mistake to think of LISP as a Loc/ID Separation protocol. Asserting that it is - or behaving as if it is - does not alter the fact that it is not. I can't imagine why LISP as the name for an Internet protocol should be regarded as homage to the programming language. Is there any evidence that this was the intention in late 2006 or early 2007? - Robin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [IETF] The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP GSE
Hi Robin, Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want to be dragged in such kind of discussion. I expressed my opinion, please do not attribute to me things that I did not say or meant to say. Thanks ciao Luigi On Oct 28, 2011, at 13:52 , Robin Whittle wrote: Hi Luigi, You wrote: this is your personal interpretation not what I said. Sure - can you provide a more accurate interpretation? - Robin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
