Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10
review-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10-opsdir-lc-bonica-2015-04-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-04-28
Requested 2015-04-19
Authors Luigi Iannone , Darrel Lewis , David Meyer , Vince Fuller
Draft last updated 2015-04-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ron Bonica
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10-opsdir-lc-bonica-2015-04-26
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Result Serious Issues
Completed 2015-04-26
review-ietf-lisp-eid-block-10-opsdir-lc-bonica-2015-04-26-00
Folks,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document is on the Informational Track and is a direction to IANA to
allocate a /32 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP).

Major Issues
==========

Section 3 (Rationale and Intent)

- Bullet item 3 (Early LISP destination detection) should be removed. Please
see the LISP WG mailing list thread that begins with

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg05944.html

. In particular, look at

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg05945.html

- Bullet item 4 (Traffic Engineering) is unclear. Are you applying TE inside or
outside of the LISP site? If outside, the presence of a LISP header identifies
LISP traffic.  If inside, the traffic could be marked otherwise. Could you say
more about the use-case?

- Bullet item 5 (Transition mechanism) should be removed. It doesn't add any
value beyond bullet item 5 and section 4.

Section 4 (Expected Use)

- Paragraphs 2 and 3 contradict each other regarding whether IPv6 EID prefixes
can be advertised into BGP as anything more specific than a /32.

Section 7 (Routing Considerations)

- If Section 4, Paragraph 3 is correct, a PITR can advertise the IPv6 EID block
as a single /32. However, it cannot advertise more specifics. If this is the
case, the PITR has to carry traffic for every LISP site in the world,
regardless of whether it can collect money from the site. Will this work?

Ron Bonica