Subject: Re: [Int-area] [rrg] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as towhether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:51:55 -0500 (EST)

> The to-be-formed WG should not only focus on LISP, but also focus on
    > other map&encap solutions.

The problem is that if you diffuse the WG focus like this, it will slow
things down. The IETF practise in the past has been, when there are multiple
protocols which overlap in functionality, to do each one in a separate WG
precisely so each can focus on their own protocol.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:49:55 -0500 (EST)

> From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>

    > if you are going to claim liveness through a protocol, you have to send
    > control packets all the time from M ITRs to N ETRs.

I find this terminology somewhat non-intuitive, and wonder if it's too late
to change it. To me, "liveness" would imply as to whether something is live
or dead, i.e. up or down. (Such state detection can obviously be performed on
ITR I1's behalf by I2, and the result communicated locally from I2 to I1.)

The issue of whether packets from ITR Im can reach ETR En (which is where you
run into the need for M*N) I would describe as "reachability". (So if there's
a routing problem, or an access control setting, that prevents I1 from
getting to E7 even through I1 can get to E8 and I2 can get to E7, that would
be a reachability problem on the {I1, E7} pairing.) I seem to recall this
term being used in at least one routing protocol, although I can't now recall
which one.
	
	Noel