Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
Luigi, You and Dino both have a good point. We don't want to turn the LISP intro document into a beauty contest between BGP and LISP. However, we do want to explain what LISP is and what makes it unique. The pull model is certainly among LISP's salient characteristics. So, the new section should discuss the following: - benefits of the pull model - challenges presented by the pull model - LISP machinery designed to address those challenges I would be glad to propose some text for that section. Ron -Original Message- From: Luigi Iannone [mailto:g...@gigix.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:58 AM To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Ronald Bonica; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) As a personal opinion, I tend to agree with Dino. It might be better to compare pull vs push model without the specifics of BGP (or nay other push-based solution). Independently from whether we compare vs BGP or not, it is still worth to have such discussion in the document IMHO. Luigi On 12 Aug 2014, at 01:32, Dino Farinacci farina...@gmail.com wrote: We should not compare LISP to any other protocol. We should define what LISP is. BGP and LISP solve different problems. Dino On Aug 11, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: Darrel, Clearly, this is a WG document and the entire WG gets a chance to review, accept or reject a contribution. That goes without saying for any document. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:10 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) Doing the same I mentioned that I'd want to see the text before supporting (or opposing) its inclusion... So adding sections seems somewhat premature. -D On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally Darrel, Fair enough. Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that are now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is Differences Between LISP and BGP. I will provide text within the next week or so. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ 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] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
Dino, You have a very good point! In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron -Original Message- From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 5:07 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) LISP is different from GRE and L3VPN because it pulls mapping information to itself. By contrast, GRE mapping information is generally configured statically. L3VPN mapping information is pushed by BGP. Therefore, LISP must deal with the problems of stale mapping information and cache misses. Also, LISP must deal with the problem of egress encapsulation node liveness. Ron, I have to keep you honest here. It doesn't matter if you pull or push, ANY information that is distributed can be stale. If a route changes in BGP and there is a congested path and the Update is continually being retransmitted by TCP to get to the BGP peer, that BGP peer has stale information. Dino ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally Darrel, Fair enough. Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that are now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is Differences Between LISP and BGP. I will provide text within the next week or so. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
Doing the same I mentioned that I’d want to see the text before supporting (or opposing) its inclusion… So adding sections seems somewhat premature. -D On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally Darrel, Fair enough. Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that are now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is Differences Between LISP and BGP. I will provide text within the next week or so. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
Darrel, Clearly, this is a WG document and the entire WG gets a chance to review, accept or reject a contribution. That goes without saying for any document. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:10 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) Doing the same I mentioned that I'd want to see the text before supporting (or opposing) its inclusion... So adding sections seems somewhat premature. -D On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally Darrel, Fair enough. Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that are now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is Differences Between LISP and BGP. I will provide text within the next week or so. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
We should not compare LISP to any other protocol. We should define what LISP is. BGP and LISP solve different problems. Dino On Aug 11, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: Darrel, Clearly, this is a WG document and the entire WG gets a chance to review, accept or reject a contribution. That goes without saying for any document. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:10 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) Doing the same I mentioned that I'd want to see the text before supporting (or opposing) its inclusion... So adding sections seems somewhat premature. -D On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally Darrel, Fair enough. Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that are now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is Differences Between LISP and BGP. I will provide text within the next week or so. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
+1 I am however interested in the comparison, but I don't see it as part of an introduction or other lisp specification document Victor On Aug 11, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Dino Farinacci farina...@gmail.com wrote: We should not compare LISP to any other protocol. We should define what LISP is. BGP and LISP solve different problems. Dino On Aug 11, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: Darrel, Clearly, this is a WG document and the entire WG gets a chance to review, accept or reject a contribution. That goes without saying for any document. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 7:10 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) Doing the same I mentioned that I'd want to see the text before supporting (or opposing) its inclusion... So adding sections seems somewhat premature. -D On Aug 11, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: This time adding the folks who I dropped accidentally Darrel, Fair enough. Could the editors leave an empty section between the sections that are now numbered 6.4 and 6.5. The Title of that section is Differences Between LISP and BGP. I will provide text within the next week or so. Ron -Original Message- From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:darle...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM To: Ronald Bonica Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); Dino Farinacci; LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3) On Aug 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote: In order to help the reader understand the difference between LISP and BGP, it might be a good idea to add a few pages that compare and contrast the two. It should answer the following questions: - In BGP, how does the producer of a route know that it is time to push it - In LISP, how does the consumer of a route know that it is time to pull it - In BGP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable - In LISP, what happens when the control path between the producer and consumer of a route becomes degraded or unusable Ron I eagerly await your suggested text. -D ___ 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] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
Folks, The editors correctly observe that Section 6.2 needs to be rewritten. A better approach would be to note that LISP is a map-and-encap strategy. An ingress encapsulation endpoint: - accepts a packet that is addressed from one address space (EID) - maps the EID addresses to corresponding addresses in another space (LOC) - encapsulates the incoming packet in another that is addressed using LOC space - forwards the packet to the egress encapsulation endpoint where it is de-encapsulated In this regard, LISP is similar to many other encapsulation and VPN technologies (e.g., GRE, L3VPN). LISP is different from GRE and L3VPN because it pulls mapping information to itself. By contrast, GRE mapping information is generally configured statically. L3VPN mapping information is pushed by BGP. Therefore, LISP must deal with the problems of stale mapping information and cache misses. Also, LISP must deal with the problem of egress encapsulation node liveness. Ron Bonica ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 3)
LISP is different from GRE and L3VPN because it pulls mapping information to itself. By contrast, GRE mapping information is generally configured statically. L3VPN mapping information is pushed by BGP. Therefore, LISP must deal with the problems of stale mapping information and cache misses. Also, LISP must deal with the problem of egress encapsulation node liveness. Ron, I have to keep you honest here. It doesn't matter if you pull or push, ANY information that is distributed can be stale. If a route changes in BGP and there is a congested path and the Update is continually being retransmitted by TCP to get to the BGP peer, that BGP peer has stale information. Dino ___ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
