Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT)
draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-12-01)
Unknown
I picked out the same sentence as several others... EID-prefixes are expected to be allocated to a LISP site by Internet Registries. ...but I wondered whether you were saying something less alarming than they interpretted (for example, that the addresses are not from a private space). In any case, clarification will surely help. --- Abstract I can't parse... Termed the Alternative Logical Topology (ALT), the index is built as an overlay network on the public Internet using the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and the Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE). The "index" is termed the ALT? The "index" is built as a network? Maybe s/index/distributed index system/ ?
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-30)
Unknown
What does this phrase from the definition of EID-prefix mean: EID- prefixes are routed on the ALT (not on the global Internet) Perhaps "information about EID-prefixes is exchanged among ALT routers through BGP" or "Map-Requests are routed through the ALT to the ETR that owns the requested EID-prefix"? From section 4: An ITR uses the ALT to learn the best path for forwarding an ALT Datagram destined to a particular EID-prefix. Really? Does the ITR really learn the best path? I thought the forwarding was all done transparently by the ALT routers. In section 6.1, I think LISP+ALT MUST "use newly-assigned AS numbers that are unrelated to the ASNs used by the global routing system." Presumably the lisp WG or some appropriate authority on behalf of the experiment will formally request the ASNs from IANA? From section 7: The ALT BGP peering topology should be arranged in a tree-like fashion (with some meshiness), with redundancy to deal with node and link failures. I would need some additional detail if I were to participate in the experiment. I thought the ALT routers formed a mesh of sorts. Does "tree-like fashion (with some meshiness)" mean a tree topology within a LISP site and a mesh among sites?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-12-06)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-12-13)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-12-01)
Unknown
===== Using these proven protocols, the ALT can be built and deployed relatively quickly without any changes to the existing routing infrastructure. SB> Whilst this may be true the text sounds like it fell off the SB> back of a marketing slide. ===== Legacy Internet: The portion of the Internet which does not run LISP and does not participate in LISP+ALT. SB> A rather pejorative term. Particularly as LISP is an SB> experimental protocol. ========= 3.3. Caveats on the use of Data Probes It is worth noting that there has been a great deal of discussion and controversy about whether Data Probes are a good idea. On the one hand, using them offers a method of avoiding the "first packet drop" problem when an ITR does not have a mapping for a particular EID- prefix. On the other hand, forwarding data packets on the ALT would require that it either be engineered to support relatively high traffic rates, which is not generally feasible for a tunneled network, or that it be carefully designed to aggressively rate-limit traffic to avoid congestion or DoS attacks. There may also be issues caused by different latency or other performance characteristics between the ALT path taken by an initial Data Probe and the "Internet" path taken by subsequent packets on the same flow once a mapping is in place on an ITR. For these reasons, the use of Data Probes is not recommended at this time; they should only be originated an ITR when explicitly configured to do so and such configuration should only be enabled when performing experiments intended to test the viability of using Data Probes. SB> This text looks like it needs to be in the main LISP spec. SB> There also needs to be text discussion the impact of the SB> cache system on connectionless flows. ======== SB> There does not seem to be a definition of "PI"
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown