Subject: [lisp] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:39:41 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Joel in that some more detail on the deliverables would be
nice — also, some of the expected interactions should be called out; for
example, for the multicast item I would expect interaction with the pim
WG, etc.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:21:31 -0500

I am not sure how to properly expand the descriptions of the mobility 
and multicast items.

The mobility item is specifically aimed at using the LISP Mobile Node 
techniques (for which we have an Internet Draft in good shape.)  There 
has been discussion of using that for moved VMs and for actual mobile 
terminals.  We can reference NVO3 for data center usage.  But that is 
not really mobility.

the multicast work is reflective of a series of drafts on which the 
working group is pretty close to agreement on a replication engineering 
draft and a signal free draft.  The replication engineering draft 
mentions PIM, but does not modify or affect it in any way.  And 
signla-free is separate from any other working group effort.

We can add text on each one talking about the solutions the working 
group is looking at, but I don't think that is a good idea.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:23:49 -0800

> the multicast work is reflective of a series of drafts on which the working group is pretty close to agreement on a replication engineering draft and a signal free draft.  The replication engineering draft mentions PIM, but does not modify or affect it in any way.  And signla-free is separate from any other working group effort.

And there is RFC6831. It mentions PIM in a big way.

Dino

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:38:36 -0500

Yes, we did RFC 6831.  As far as I know, no one in the WG plans to make 
any enhancements to that or its interaction with PIM.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:48:13 -0800

> Yes, we did RFC 6831.  As far as I know, no one in the WG plans to make any enhancements to that or its interaction with PIM.

Agree. RFC6831 was designed and written to interwork with existing PIM/IGMP multicast deployed at LISP sites.

Dino