Subject: Re: [lisp] Intro final content questions

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:46:38 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>

Hi, thanks for the feedback!

    > Should we include anything about the request of an EID prefix?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understood that? Do you mean 'getting a prefix
allocated from some authority'?

If so, I suppose I could put in a sentence or two about it, but it's not
really something I'd want to cover in any detail in this document.

    > What if we give a slightly larger scope to this section? Including LISP
    > alternative use cases.

In this section ("Current Improvements") I'm more trying to focus on coming
changes in the _protocol itself_, not on new things people are doing with it.

(If you think about it, a binding layer of this sort is going to be used in
all sorts of ways - including some that are rather ugly hacks! What people
call Lampson's Law [it's actually Wheeler's, IIRC] - "all problems in computer
science can be solved with another layer of indirection" - pretty much
guarantees that. Look at the tricks people play with ARP, for example.  And
given that LISP, unlike ARP, has names with global scope on _both_ sides of
the mapping, that increases its power, and thus the things it will be used
for...)

So I think 'listing all the nifty things we can do with LISP' is really out
of scope for this document - I listed what I thought would be the most
important ones in the "Initial Applications" section just to give people an
idea of what good it was. (If there is some major application I should be
listing there that I haven't, please let me know.)

    > LISP is being used (or at least is studied) to be used in scenarios for
    > which it has not been designed originally.

Of course! See Wheeler's Law... :-) (And also my aphorism about 'the sign of
great architecture'... :-)

    > Which, BTW includes mobility since it has never been in the charter.

A few protocol tweaks were added for mobility (e.g. proxy Map-Replying),
which is why I wanted to mention that one specifically.

    > I am thinking at LISP in the context of data centers (NVO3 drafts), or
    > as multimedia traffic optimisation (check the TCMTF Bof next week).

If any of these a) need protocol changes, and b) those changes are likely to
happen, they would be candidates. Alas, I haven't had time to read them yet - 
can someone fill me in on whether they involve LISP protocol changes?

	Noel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:15:41 -0700

> listing there that I haven't, please let me know.)

I tend to agree. We want the intro spec to be short, to the point, so people can get the concept with a single read through the document.

We can always write more documents for the various use-cases that come up.

Dino

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:15:53 +0200

> I tend to agree. We want the intro spec to be short, to the point, so people can get the concept with a single read through the document.

Yes, sound reasonable.

> We can always write more documents for the various use-cases that come up.

True. Any volunteer? ;-)

L.

> Dino
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:18:31 +0200

Hi Noel,

thanks for the answer, I completely agree with your vision of the document.

Just a quick note:

On 24 Jul. 2013, at 00:46 , Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:

[snip]
> can someone fill me in on whether they involve LISP protocol changes?

AFAICT they do not  need protocol changes, so it is not necessary to cite them.

ciao

Luigi