Skip to main content

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