Hi Dino,
I do not see a reply to my last email.
Can you fix the figure of the example so that we can move forward?
The concerned part is:
>>
>>> This is exactly the point. I do not see an alternate path. I see only an
>>> alternate tunnel.
>>> The current text is still confusing. You want "to route around the path
>>> from B to C” and to do it you route "through link B—>C”. This looks like a
>>> contradiction to me.
>>
>> B and C have other links. Don’t you see the link between B and X. That is
>> “another” path.
>
> But the figure has no “other path” in it. I added one in my first review but
> you did not like it.
>
> The text:
>
> if it is desirable to route around the path from B to C through link B-->C,
>
> Still look like a contradiction. Furthermore, in figure 1 you were already
> routing through link B—>C, so it looks like you “route around” through the
> very same link…..
>
>
For clarity, according to the convention you are using the figure 2 show a
tunnel between X and Y but not a path. I put back my very first email with the
suggested correct figure.
Source site (----------------------------) Destination Site
+--------+ ( ) +---------+
| \ ( ) / |
| seid ITR ---(-> A -> B --------> C -> D -)---> ETR deid |
| / || ( | ^ ) ^^ \ |
| / || ( | | ) || \ |
+-------+ || ( v | ) || +--------+
|| ( X --------> Y ) ||
|| ( ^^ || ^^ || ) || <>
|| (------||-||-------||-||-----) ||
|| || || || ||
|| || ||=======|| || ||
=============== LISP ===============
LISP Tunnel Tunnel LISP Tunnel
Ciao
L.
> On 13 May 2024, at 13:58, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 7 May 2024, at 16:36, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The text still assumes that an ELP must be returned.
>>
>> That is correct.
>>
>>>
>>> Just replace the words:
>>>
>>> “which returns a ELP-based locator record for a path to RTR 'y', and
>>> encapsulates packets…"
>>
>> The example is illustrating nesting so I believe it is not needed.
>
> I understand the example, but the text is a bit misleading because seems to
> suggest that lookup _must_ return an ELP.
> Anyway, in the last revision is already better.
>
>
>>
>>>>>> Luigi, the terms are used in self contained sections. They are fine.
>>>>>> S-EID is ONLY used in the multicast section because the is the
>>>>>> convention we use to look up a multicast mapping (S-EID, G-EID).
>>>
>>> I think a unique term makes more sense, but this is not a blocking point.
>>
>> It is a unique term. The term S-EID is used in all the multicast drafts to
>> describe an (S,G).
>
> Fine.
>
>>
>>> This is exactly the point. I do not see an alternate path. I see only an
>>> alternate tunnel.
>>> The current text is still confusing. You want "to route around the path
>>> from B to C” and to do it you route "through link B—>C”. This looks like a
>>> contradiction to me.
>>
>> B and C have other links. Don’t you see the link between B and X. That is
>> “another” path.
>
> But the figure has no “other path” in it. I added one in my first review but
> you did not like it.
>
> The text:
>
> if it is desirable to route around the path from B to C through link B-->C,
>
> Still look like a contradiction. Furthermore, in figure 1 you were already
> routing through link B—>C, so it looks like you “route around” through the
> very same link…..
>
>
>
>>
>>> The sentence remains superfluous. Of course you can do it with ODL, but
>>> this is out of the scope of the IETF and I do not see why it should be
>>> there.
>>> The other LISP documents never mention a provision system, so why this one
>>> has to mention it? Is there a compelling reason?
>>
>> Because in other cases ETRs register their own RLOCs because they know them.
>> With an ELP, a provisioning system knows the topology and can register all
>> the addresses in the ELP. It has a broader view.
>>
>> There are deployments that take an ISIS topology, compute paths offline as
>> an SDN controller, and can build an ELP path based on policy rules (where
>> re-encapsulation points can be placed in the network).
>>
>
> The sentence is still superfluous. The fact that some LISP deployments use
> some SDN approach has no place in the document. This is a technical document
> for implementation of a feature, not a LISP advertisement.
> You can leave the sentence there if you really wish, but remains superfluous.
>
>
> Fix the example and we tackle the text.
>
> Ciao
>
> L.
>
>
>> Dino
>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
