Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Albert Cabellos]

Hi all

I just posted -12 with the changes suggested by Luigi

Albert

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Luigi Iannone  wrote:

> Hi Albert,
>
> thanks for submitting the updated document.
>
> I have have a few residual nits listed below. Fixed those we can move to
> LC IMO.
>
> Ciao
>
> L.
>
>
>
>LISP Nonce:  The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
>   randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1.  Nonce
>   generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
>   required to generate different nonces when sending to different
>   destinations.
>
> [Luigi]
> As stated for -07: What is a destination? Should be different RLOCs, for
> clarity.
>
>
> The Clock Sweep mechanism is just about management should go in AOM.
>
>
> The following document are not Normative:
>
>  [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
>   "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106 
> , RFC 4086 
> ,
>   DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
>   .
>
>
> [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
>   Support in IPv6", RFC 6275 
> , DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
>   2011, .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 22:33, Albert Cabellos 
> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I'll post a new version without such sections shortly.
>
> I volunteer to help writing the OAM document.
>
> Albert
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Dino Farinacci 
> wrote:
>
>> >> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi all
>> >>>
>> >>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
>> >>>
>> >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement
>> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
>> >>>
>> >>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this
>> text will go.
>> >>
>> >> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.
>> >
>> > Nobody wants to lose valuable text.
>>
>> Glad you feel that way.
>>
>> >
>> >> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to
>> lose it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.
>> >
>> > That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new
>> OAM document, without any change in the text.
>> > Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
>> > This is an half an hour task.
>>
>> But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the
>> co-authors (Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833.
>>
>> So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t
>> make any change.
>> >
>> > Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM
>> document.
>> > If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task.
>> Authorship will be anyway preserved.
>>
>>
>> Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of
>> how EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are
>> already documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t
>> go in an OAM document.
>>
>> Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the
>> network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the
>> Deployment RFC.
>>
>> Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an
>> OAM document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are
>> other OAM mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM
>> document.
>>
>> This will not take 1/2 hour.
>>
>> And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We
>> have already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane
>> text. We achieved that goal from the charter.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>>
>
>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Luigi Iannone]

Hi Albert,

thanks for submitting the updated document.

I have have a few residual nits listed below. Fixed those we can move to LC IMO.

Ciao

L.



> 
>LISP Nonce:  The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
>   randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1.  Nonce
>   generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
>   required to generate different nonces when sending to different
>   destinations.  
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: What is a destination? Should be different RLOCs, for 
clarity.


The Clock Sweep mechanism is just about management should go in AOM.


The following document are not Normative:

 [RFC4086 <>]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
  "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106 
, RFC 4086 
,
  DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
  >.

[RFC6275 <>]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
  Support in IPv6", RFC 6275 , 
DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
  2011, >.





> On 5 Mar 2018, at 22:33, Albert Cabellos  wrote:
> 
> Hi 
> 
> I'll post a new version without such sections shortly.
> 
> I volunteer to help writing the OAM document.
> 
> Albert
> 
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Dino Farinacci  > wrote:
> >> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
> >>>
> >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement 
> >>> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
> >>>
> >>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this text 
> >>> will go.
> >>
> >> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.
> >
> > Nobody wants to lose valuable text.
> 
> Glad you feel that way.
> 
> >
> >> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to lose 
> >> it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.
> >
> > That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM 
> > document, without any change in the text.
> > Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
> > This is an half an hour task.
> 
> But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the 
> co-authors (Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833.
> 
> So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t make 
> >> any change.
> >
> > Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document.
> > If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task. 
> > Authorship will be anyway preserved.
> 
> 
> Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of how 
> EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are already 
> documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t go in an 
> OAM document.
> 
> Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the 
> network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the Deployment 
> RFC.
> 
> Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an OAM 
> document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are other 
> OAM mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM document.
> 
> This will not take 1/2 hour.
> 
> And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We have 
> already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane text. We 
> achieved that goal from the charter.
> 
> Dino
> 
> 

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Albert Cabellos]

Hi

I'll post a new version without such sections shortly.

I volunteer to help writing the OAM document.

Albert

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Dino Farinacci  wrote:

> >> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
> >>>
> >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement
> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
> >>>
> >>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this
> text will go.
> >>
> >> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.
> >
> > Nobody wants to lose valuable text.
>
> Glad you feel that way.
>
> >
> >> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to
> lose it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.
> >
> > That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM
> document, without any change in the text.
> > Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
> > This is an half an hour task.
>
> But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the
> co-authors (Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833.
>
> So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus.
>
> >
> >>
> >> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t
> make any change.
> >
> > Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document.
> > If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task.
> Authorship will be anyway preserved.
>
>
> Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of
> how EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are
> already documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t
> go in an OAM document.
>
> Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the
> network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the
> Deployment RFC.
>
> Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an
> OAM document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are
> other OAM mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM
> document.
>
> This will not take 1/2 hour.
>
> And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We
> have already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane
> text. We achieved that goal from the charter.
>
> Dino
>
>
___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Dino Farinacci]

>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
>>> 
>>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement 
>>> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
>>> 
>>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this text 
>>> will go.
>> 
>> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.
> 
> Nobody wants to lose valuable text.

Glad you feel that way.

> 
>> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to lose 
>> it. There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.
> 
> That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM 
> document, without any change in the text.
> Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
> This is an half an hour task. 

But there was also concerns about slowing the process down. And the co-authors 
(Albert and I) don’t think it should move from RFC6833.

So there isn’t concensus. And I don’t believe it is even rough concensus.

> 
>> 
>> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t make 
>> any change.
> 
> Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document.
> If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task. Authorship 
> will be anyway preserved.


Section 16 is “Mobility Considerations” that discusses various forms of how 
EIDs can change RLOCs. And it sets up for different designs that are already 
documented in various documents. But Mobility certainly shouldn’t go in an OAM 
document. 

Section 17 discusses where xTRs (data-plane boxes) should reside in the 
network. And sets up for a more detail discussion which is in the Deployment 
RFC.

Section 18 is “Traceroute Considerations”, this arguably can go into an OAM 
document. But it would be 3 pages. And then one would argue there are other OAM 
mechanisms spread across LISP documents that could go in an OAM document.

This will not take 1/2 hour.

And I’m finding it hard to see the value in doing all this busy work. We have 
already accomplished separating data-plane text from control-plane text. We 
achieved that goal from the charter.

Dino

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Luigi Iannone]

> On 5 Mar 2018, at 19:06, Dino Farinacci  wrote:
> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> This document should address all the comments except this one:
>> 
>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement 
>> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
>> 
>> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this text 
>> will go.
> 
> Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text.

Nobody wants to lose valuable text.

> A lot of time and thought went into writing it and we didn’t want to lose it. 
> There was no where that was agreed upon to put it.

That is not accurate. There was clear indication to move it to a new OAM 
document, without any change in the text.
Purpose was to have just a different placeholder that make more sense.
This is an half an hour task. 

> 
> So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t make any 
> change.

Again not accurate, please spend half an hour to create the OAM document.
If you do not have time we can appoint other editors for the task. Authorship 
will be anyway preserved.

Thanks

Luigi



> 
> Dino
> 
>> 
>> If we adress this by today I can submit a new version (before the cut-off) 
>> taking this comment into account.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Albert
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Luigi Iannone  wrote:
>> Hi Albert, Dino,
>> 
>> this version of the document doesn’t not yet completely respect the 
>> discussions of the last months.
>> 
>> Do you plan another version before London?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Luigi
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:51, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>> directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the 
>>> IETF.
>>> 
>>>   Title   : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
>>>   Authors : Dino Farinacci
>>> Vince Fuller
>>> Dave Meyer
>>> Darrel Lewis
>>> Albert Cabellos
>>>  Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt
>>>  Pages   : 50
>>>  Date: 2018-03-04
>>> 
>>> Abstract:
>>>  This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
>>>  Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
>>>  Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
>>>  (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
>>>  effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
>>>  overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
>>>  according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.
>>> 
>>>  LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
>>>  routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
>>>  among other features.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
>>> 
>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
>>> 
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>> 
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>> i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Dino Farinacci]

> Hi all
> 
> This document should address all the comments except this one:
> 
> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement 
> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
> 
> The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this text will 
> go.

Right, we concluded to not remove the valuable text. A lot of time and thought 
went into writing it and we didn’t want to lose it. There was no where that was 
agreed upon to put it.

So since we felt there was no concensus on Sections 16-18, we didn’t make any 
change.

Dino

> 
> If we adress this by today I can submit a new version (before the cut-off) 
> taking this comment into account.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Albert
> 
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Luigi Iannone  wrote:
> Hi Albert, Dino,
> 
> this version of the document doesn’t not yet completely respect the 
> discussions of the last months.
> 
> Do you plan another version before London?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Luigi
> 
> 
> > On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:51, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> > directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the 
> > IETF.
> >
> >Title   : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
> >Authors : Dino Farinacci
> >  Vince Fuller
> >  Dave Meyer
> >  Darrel Lewis
> >  Albert Cabellos
> >   Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt
> >   Pages   : 50
> >   Date: 2018-03-04
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
> >   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
> >   Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
> >   (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
> >   effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
> >   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
> >   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.
> >
> >   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
> >   routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
> >   among other features.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > ___
> > I-D-Announce mailing list
> > i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Albert Cabellos]

Hi all

This document should address all the comments except this one:

G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement
Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document


The authors would like to have a better understanding of where this text
will go.

If we adress this by today I can submit a new version (before the cut-off)
taking this comment into account.

Thanks!

Albert

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Luigi Iannone  wrote:

> Hi Albert, Dino,
>
> this version of the document doesn’t not yet completely respect the
> discussions of the last months.
>
> Do you plan another version before London?
>
> Thanks
>
> Luigi
>
>
> > On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:51, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of
> the IETF.
> >
> >Title   : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
> >Authors : Dino Farinacci
> >  Vince Fuller
> >  Dave Meyer
> >  Darrel Lewis
> >  Albert Cabellos
> >   Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt
> >   Pages   : 50
> >   Date: 2018-03-04
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
> >   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
> >   Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
> >   (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
> >   effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
> >   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
> >   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.
> >
> >   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
> >   routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
> >   among other features.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > ___
> > I-D-Announce mailing list
> > i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[Luigi Iannone]

Hi Albert, Dino,

this version of the document doesn’t not yet completely respect the discussions 
of the last months. 

Do you plan another version before London?

Thanks

Luigi
 

> On 5 Mar 2018, at 00:51, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the 
> IETF.
> 
>Title   : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
>Authors : Dino Farinacci
>  Vince Fuller
>  Dave Meyer
>  Darrel Lewis
>  Albert Cabellos
>   Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt
>   Pages   : 50
>   Date: 2018-03-04
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
>   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
>   Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
>   (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
>   effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
>   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
>   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.
> 
>   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
>   routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
>   among other features.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> ___
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

[lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF.

Title   : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
Authors : Dino Farinacci
  Vince Fuller
  Dave Meyer
  Darrel Lewis
  Albert Cabellos
Filename: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10.txt
Pages   : 50
Date: 2018-03-04

Abstract:
   This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
   Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
   (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
   effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.

   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
   routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
   among other features.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp