[lisp] Re: Call for adoption for documents 6831bis and 8378bis

Support! From: Luigi Iannone Date: Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 5:04 AM To: LISP mailing list list Cc: lisp-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] Call for adoption for documents 6831bis and 8378bis Hi All, the bis documents about multicast, namely: The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multi

[lisp] Re: draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp wglc

Support! From: Michael McBride Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 9:35:13 PM To: p...@ietf.org Cc: lisp@ietf.org Subject: [lisp] draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp wglc Hi all, Today begins a 2 week wglc for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-jp-exte

Re: [lisp] Moving draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding to standard track?

Support. -Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Lori Jakab Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 2:02 AM To: lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] Moving draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding to standard track? Support. -Lori On 1/22/24 11:55 PM, Marc Portoles Comeras (mportole) wrote: I also support moving this

Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub]

Never mind, confusion was due to ‘-‘ in the unchanged text of the unified diff. Split diff shows correctly that LISP External Connectivity text is not removed, so I am good with it. Thanks, Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Prakash Jain (prakjain) Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:26 AM To

Re: [lisp] WG work items list [WAS: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub]

Apologies for jumping little late and if I missed some part of the discussion. I thought we agreed to add external connectivity work, are we removing it now (In diff I only see – sign, don’t see + sign)? - LISP External Connectivity: [RFC6832] defines the Proxy ETR element, to be used to conne

Re: [lisp] Call for adoption for document draft-farinacci-lisp-decent

I support as it could help in scaling of co-located MSMR (with xTRs) which many of LISP Enterprise deployments use today (and if those need to scale out). Thanks, Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone Date: Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 5:35 AM To: LISP mailing list list Cc: lisp-cha..

Re: [lisp] Proposed WG Charter on GitHub

Thanks a lot, I am fine with it. Cheers, Prakash From: Luigi Iannone Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 6:13 AM To: Prakash Jain (prakjain) Cc: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) , Padma Pillay-Esnault , LISP mailing list list , lisp-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed WG Charter on GitHub I

Re: [lisp] Proposed WG Charter on GitHub

Hi All, Should we include ‘External connectivity’ (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity/) work too in the charter as its close to the adoption or it needs to be adopted first? Thanks, Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) Date

Re: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity-08.txt

Thanks Dino, appreciate the review feedbacks from you, Padma and others in LISP WG. Hoping it to be adopted by WG to further work on it. Cheers, Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023, 8:47 AM To: internet-dra...@ietf.org

Re: [lisp] draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity comments/discussion

FYI, updated the latest draft with comments taken care. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity/08/ Thanks, Prakash On 1/10/23, 5:16 PM, "Prakash Jain (prakjain)" mailto:prakj...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Dino, Thanks for the reply, follow-

Re: [lisp] Rechartering Thread 1: Promised work item: work items currently in the charter but not finished

Please include/keep draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity as a work item for moving forward, we are currently working on it. Thanks, Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Luigi Iannone Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:46 AM To: "lisp@ietf.org list" Cc: "lisp-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [l

Re: [lisp] draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity comments/discussion

Will do. Thanks, Prakash On 1/10/23, 6:25 PM, "Dino Farinacci" mailto:farina...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2023, at 5:16 PM, Prakash Jain (prakjain) <mailto:prakj...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > PJ>>> As per current draft, both options are avail

Re: [lisp] draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity comments/discussion

Hi Dino, Thanks for the reply, follow-up clarification inline (PJ>>>), On 1/10/23, 3:24 PM, "Dino Farinacci" mailto:farina...@gmail.com>> wrote: > • (Dino): Elaborate on the update mechanisms/message types ( legacy LISP or > pub-sub preferred??). > (Authors): A shorter TTL would be a simple m

[lisp] draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity comments/discussion

Happy New Year All, Thanks for the comments on draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity during IETF 115, London as well as the offline discussions with the reviewers afterwards. Here is the follow-up of that discussi

Re: [lisp] LISP PubSub to Proposed Standard?

+1 - Prakash On 12/8/22, 8:09 AM, "lisp on behalf of Sharon Barkai" wrote: ++ --szb Cell: +972.53.2470068 WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 > On Dec 8, 2022, at 18:02, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > >> >> Hi Luigi, all, >> >> I also think that it is reasona

Re: [lisp] lisp - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 115

We would like to present draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity. Thanks, Prakash From: lisp on behalf of Dino Farinacci Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022, 10:37 AM To: Sharon Barkai Cc: lisp-cha...@ietf.org ; lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] lisp - Requ

Re: [lisp] Unknown LCAF Types (?) (draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf)

> But even with same vendor but old implementation, the LCAF type should be > ignored by old when new sends to old. Yes, agree. Thanks, Prakash On 4/13/22, 2:39 PM, "Dino Farinacci" wrote: > On Apr 13, 2022, at 2:33 PM, Prakash Jain (prakjain) wrote: >

Re: [lisp] Unknown LCAF Types (?) (draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf)

Since its vendor specific LCAF, vendor might intend to use this for its vendor spefic usage/purpose in generic lisp message. Means, if recever is same vendor as transmitter, that usage is applicable, otherwise ignore/drop vendor specific LCAF but generic lisp message should still be procssed as

Re: [lisp] Virtual meeting

Hi Joel, Sorry, missed this earlier. I have earlier asked a slot in Vancouver to present lisp-site-external-connectivity draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jain-lisp-site-external-connectivity-00). If slots are still available in virtual session, we would like to have 10 min slot to discu

[lisp] Clarification on draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis

Hi Authors, Came across following in (draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24) , Page 14, under EID Prefix: "When a Map-Request is sent by an ITR because a data packet is received for a destination where there is no mapping entry, the EID-Prefix is set to the destination IP address of the

Re: [lisp] New name for upcoming LISP -OAM- document

Agree, OAM has much bigger scope than traceroute, so naming it with 'traceroute considerations' makes more sense. Thanks, Prakash -Original Message- From: lisp On Behalf Of Fabio Maino (fmaino) Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:06 AM To: lisp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lisp] New name for upc