Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06
review-ietf-lisp-gpe-06-tsvart-telechat-westerlund-2018-09-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2018-09-25
Requested 2018-09-10
Authors Fabio Maino , Jennifer Lemon , Puneet Agarwal , Darrel Lewis , Michael Smith
I-D last updated 2018-09-21
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Christopher A. Wood (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -06 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Magnus Westerlund
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 19)
Result On the Right Track
Completed 2018-09-21
review-ietf-lisp-gpe-06-tsvart-telechat-westerlund-2018-09-21-00
This new version resolved some of the issues, but there are still some issues
to resolve.

1. The document is missing the applicability analysis for using UDP zeron
checksum to carry either Ethernet or NHS. Each of the incapsulation formats
needs an individual analysis.

2. The Ethernet encapsulation and possible also the the NHS needs
considerations for congestion control. Where the regular LISP encapuslates only
IP, which is assumed to be congestion controlled traffic itself. The same
assumption cannot normally be made for Ethernet. So please provide either an
argumentation why that would work, or consider what mechanism are needed here
to at least prevent that a particular LISP tunnel results in persistent
congestion of the path it uses. I would think some type of circuit breaker is
appropriate for this usage. I make these comments from the assumption that LISP
will be run on top of a multi provider network without guarranted resources,
such as the Internet.