Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Mon, 16 April 2007 17:09 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdUiD-00025j-J3; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:09:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdUg7-0000qA-9b for ram@iab.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:07:47 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdUaN-0003nc-Bw for ram@iab.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:01:51 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2007 10:01:50 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,415,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="136429754:sNHT51649290"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3GH1olN021911; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:01:50 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l3GH1YFE005404; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:01:48 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:01:43 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.4] ([10.21.117.19]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:01:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20070416144704.4B9E1872F4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20070416144704.4B9E1872F4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <773A9F70-2BC6-4B4D-9ABE-A154776C695C@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:01:43 -0700
To: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2007 17:01:42.0818 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8637020:01C78048]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2776; t=1176742910; x=1177606910; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RAM]=20Comment=20on=20draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt=20 (LISP) |Sender:=20; bh=MdVB3/YNfPuRY0T7uhODQfXlsuqScfvpWpp0EOVCH2M=; b=Io7cycKBRI+LKd2l4zbg6aZu4dQVll3t6m+9+vpL4BRtUYxibKqHxez1/6yRK4WeOi3DabTO mfshJ8WjFkZJtAyxK+mzcjOJp+lCFexXGctw+nTeMx8WH5u6sjVa/GEK;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

> Dino just mentioned how LISP 1 is a "phase 0 prototype effort", and  
> I suspect
> the same is true, in some ways, of many of the lower numbered LISP  
> variants.
> My sense is that the one that gets deployed in large-scale operational
> service is likely to be LISP 4 or 5 (or more), i.e. one that's not yet
> defined.

But please note, that these are variants and not version numbers.  
That is, each number is using a particular method to do mapping. So  
LISP 1.x was suppose to convey routeable IDs, LISP 2 was suppose to  
convey a pull model and 2.0 is using DNS. And 3.0 is future stuff.

So for instance (and this is not real yet and hasn't been written  
down), this is how I would number the variants:

LISP 1 and 1.5: as documented in draft-00.

LISP 2.x:       uses a pull model where:
     LISP 2.0:   uses DNS with port 53
     LISP 2.1:   uses DNS the protocol on a different port and  
infrastructure
     LISP 2.5:   uses a new and different pull protocol

LISP 3.x:       uses a pull model that does not exist today, where:
     LISP 3.0:   uses DHTs
     LISP 3.1:   considers using Compact (or ROFL) Routing

LISP 4.x:       uses a push model that does not exist today, where:
     LISP 4.0:   uses BGP not on port 179
     LISP 4.1:   uses Mark Handley's DNSpush style
     LISP 4.2:   uses a push-n-pull model, where push happens at high  
levels and
                 lower levels pull from the higher levels

LISP >= 2 means:

o Never routable IDs.
o Could mean packets are dropped while waiting for lookups to complete.

All variants of LISP assume:

o The mapping function does not convey locator reachability status.
o The EID-to-RLOC entries are relatively static, that is they change  
only at
   subscription time events.

> My guess is that the architectural commonality between LISP 1/1.5/ 
> etc and the
> eventual deployed stuff is likely to be:
>
> - Hosts and local routers don't need to be modified

ISP routers that don't use LISP for TE won't have to be modified either.

> - The existing internetwork layer is "jacked up" to become mostly an
> 	end-end host naming layer
> - End-end names are mapped into new locators as they cross the  
> boundary

Right.

> I think LISP is the first detailed proposal in the last half-decade  
> or so to
> propose operating in this particular architectural quadrant (which  
> may well be
> the only feasible one to operate in), and I suspect that's why it's  
> getting a
> lot of attention. However, the final product may look quite  
> different from the
> initial prototypes we have on paper now.

Definitely. We are trying to draw a line in the sand to start off,  
but the line isn't really that deep.  ;-)

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram