Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Impact
draft-ietf-lisp-impact-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-04-27
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-04-12
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-03-18
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-02-03
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-01-29
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-12-02
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2015-12-02
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-12-02
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-12-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-12-01
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-12-01
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2015-12-01
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2015-12-01
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-01
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-12-01
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-01
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-11-20
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Luigi Iannone | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-11-20
|
05 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-05.txt |
2015-10-26
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-10-22
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-10-22
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-10-22
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - section 3: "proven by several studies" without references is bad - we don't want blatent assertion in RFCs so please add some … [Ballot comment] - section 3: "proven by several studies" without references is bad - we don't want blatent assertion in RFCs so please add some references. That could be done via forward pointers to later in the document or just by adding the refs here as well and explaining them more later. Or else delete the sentence as being redundant. - section 3, para starting "Results indicate...": Which results? I can't tell from how it's writen. - section 4: ConteXtream needs a reference as does the tier-1 operator (even if that has to be "private communication"at least I'd know to go ask the authors if I care. - I think you could note that as a map-and-encap scheme LISP also offers the potential for encryption of traffic between xTRs and reference the relevant lisp-crypto draft. That could go where you add a mention of rfc 7258 if you do add that. (In response to I think Spencer's comment.) - As with Kathleen, I think the secdir review deserves a substantive response. Please give it one. |
2015-10-22
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] The opening of this draft "The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three principles to improve the scalability properties of Internet routing: … [Ballot comment] The opening of this draft "The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) relies on three principles to improve the scalability properties of Internet routing: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. The main goal of LISP is to make the routing infrastructure more scalable by reducing the number of prefixes announced in the Default Free Zone (DFZ)." is targeted at solving the Internet scalability issue for Internet routing. While the document goes into some details about rather large unknowns and issues observed, it does not have any indications or caveats up front that this is still experimental work - certainly as far as solving this Internet-scale problem. At a minimum, I think there need to be clear caveats on the experimental nature, on the aspects still to be understood, and on the complexity and concerns around the operational and security aspects. While LISP is a really neat idea and it's good to see how far work and research on it has progressed, this document reads much more like marketing than something discussing the engineering and operational trade-offs. 1) There is no discussion of what the "mapping system" is and I think that some of the discussion is assuming the use of BGP, but it's a bit hard to tell. At a minimum, it'd be good to clarify whether an Internet-scale deployment must use the same mapping system and what the trade-offs there are. 2) In Sec 4.1, "When there are several RLOCs, the ITR selects the one with the highest priority and sends the encapsulated packet to this RLOC. If several such RLOCs exist, then the traffic is balanced proportionally to their weight among the RLOCs with the lowest priority value." It is unclear whether the "highest priority" means the lowest priority value. Please clarify because it incorrectly sounds like the highest priority RLOC is picked - unless there are multiple in which case load-balancing among the lowest priority value RLOCs is done. 3) Sec 5.1 "Proxies cause what is referred to as path stretch and make troubleshooting harder." This doesn't actually describe what path stretch is in any way. I can guess from the name, but that's not sufficient. 4) In Sec 5.2: "Deployment in the beta network has shown that LISP+ALT ([RFC6836], [CCR13]) was not easy to maintain and control, which explains the migration to LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]" Can you give a reference or indicate what the benefits of DDT are as compared to ALT in this context? |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Hello, There was no follow up or changes (it seems) as a result of the SecDir review. It would be helpful to address … [Ballot comment] Hello, There was no follow up or changes (it seems) as a result of the SecDir review. It would be helpful to address the questions on the aim of this draft and how it applies to security for the user and impact of LISP. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06103.html |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] "RLOC" is spelled out on second use, but not on first use. "Addresses are semantically separated in two:" was a bit rough for … [Ballot comment] "RLOC" is spelled out on second use, but not on first use. "Addresses are semantically separated in two:" was a bit rough for me. Perhaps something like "Addresses have two components with different semantic meanings:"? In this text: Middle boxes/filters: because of encapsulation, the middle boxes may not understand the traffic, which can cause a firewall to drop legitimate packets. In addition, LISP allows triangular or even rectangular routing, so it is difficult to maintain a correct state even if the middle box understands LISP. Finally, filtering may also have problems because they may think only one host is generating the traffic (the ITR), as long as it is not de-encapsulated. To deal with LISP encapsulation, LISP aware firewalls that inspect inner LISP packets are proposed [lispfirewall]. I wonder if we're far enough along with RFC 7258/BCP 188 that we expect middleboxes may not understand traffic, whether it's encapsulated or not, because of encryption. Perhaps that's worth a thought, if not a mention. |
2015-10-21
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] It seems odd to me that an "impacts" paper would leave security impacts out of scope. Even with the detailed security considerations in … [Ballot comment] It seems odd to me that an "impacts" paper would leave security impacts out of scope. Even with the detailed security considerations in draft-ietf-lisp-threats, it seems like there might be some higher-level observations to make, along the lines of the rest of the draft. Along those lines, if you want to refer to draft-ietf-lisp-threats for security considerations, it needs to be a normative reference. |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I won't oppose the publication of this document. The document is well-written and clear. However, for my taste, it read too much like … [Ballot comment] I won't oppose the publication of this document. The document is well-written and clear. However, for my taste, it read too much like a combination of marketing, a white paper I might find on a vendor's site, and an overview (with pointers to interesting research papers). I also thought of the relationship with draft-ietf-lisp-introduction and wondered why some of the information in this document wasn't just included there.. Nothing necessarily wrong with all that, it just leaves me feeling unsatisfied. I don't think there's anything to be done to change that feeling. |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for producing this document, and appreciate the honesty contained therein. I have two suggestions. From the introduction "The main goal of … [Ballot comment] Hi, Thanks for producing this document, and appreciate the honesty contained therein. I have two suggestions. From the introduction "The main goal of LISP is to make the routing infrastructure.." please consider s/is/was/ given the tone of the rest of the document and the discussions underway regarding the WG. Section 2, second paragraph "Provider (interdomain) Aggregatable"; I think "interdomain" is superfluous here. Thanks Terry |
2015-10-20
|
04 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-lisp-impact.all@ietf.org |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-10-19
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-10-16
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-22 |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-lisp-impact.shepherd@ietf.org, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-impact.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-impact@ietf.org, Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com to (None) |
2015-10-09
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Kiran Chittimaneni |
2015-10-09
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Kiran Chittimaneni |
2015-10-08
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2015-10-08
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2015-10-08
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2015-10-08
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2015-10-05
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (LISP Impact) to Informational RFC … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (LISP Impact) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP Impact' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) aims at improving the Internet routing scalability properties by leveraging on three principles: address role separation, encapsulation, and mapping. In this document, based on implementation work, deployment experiences, and theoretical studies, we discuss the impact that the deployment of LISP can have on both the routing infrastructure and the end-user. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-impact/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-impact/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-10-05
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-10-05
|
04 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04.txt |
2015-10-01
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2015-09-15
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-07-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2015-07-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-07-20
|
03 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-saucez-lisp-impact/ |
2015-07-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-07-20
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-07-19
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-07-19
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Changed document writeup |
2015-07-19
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Notification list changed to "Wassim Haddad" <Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com> |
2015-07-19
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Document shepherd changed to Wassim Haddad |
2015-06-10
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Revised I-D addressing issues raised during WGLC has been submitted (-03). |
2015-06-10
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-06-10
|
03 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-03.txt |
2015-06-08
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2015-06-08
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-05-18
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | WG Last call actually started 14th May 2015. |
2015-05-18
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-05-18
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-05-07
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-02.txt |
2015-03-31
|
01 | Luigi Iannone | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2015-03-06
|
01 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01.txt |
2015-01-12
|
00 | Luigi Iannone | This document now replaces draft-saucez-lisp-impact instead of None |
2015-01-08
|
00 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-impact-00.txt |