Opened 9 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#78 closed technical (fixed)

Missing things (from J. Arkko's mail)

Reported by: luigi@… Owned by:
Priority: minor Component: ms
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Issue raised by J. Arkko in: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg02001.html

Missing things:

  • Is there some discussion somewhere about propagating changes to mapping data. AFAICT, caching Map-Resolvers and ITRs both store data for some amount of time. Can a change be propagated to them, or is this something that is not necessary based on some assumptions about the dynamics of the network?
  • Also, Map-Servers get updated with fresh information every minute. Perhaps the document should state that this puts a limit on how fast the information can change. Note that I'm not trying to argue that you should design the system for higher speed of change, I'm just asking for the characteristics of the design to be described.
  • There should probably be an operational considerations section, to talk about things like configurable parameters.
  • What issues do we expect the experiment to resolve? It would be good to document what implications of the design we do not currently fully understand.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by luigi@…

Reply sent by Vince Fuller:

  • This should really have been separated into several different issues. His point # 1 (propagating changes to mapping data) is covered by the SMR mechanism in the latest version draft-ietf-lisp. His point # 2 (one minute rate limit on Map-Registers) should be covered in the latest MS spec. His point # 3 (need for operational considerations section) should already be covered by the existance of section 5 (Open Issues and Considerations); if there are specific items he would like to see listed in that section, we welcome suggested text. His point # 4 (goal of experiment) is a vague and open-ended question; the authors believe that the goals of developing and deploying LISP are stated in the various document introductions and that no further explicit decription of what a large-scale, experimenal deployment will accomplish should be necessary; if Jari (or others) disagree, then we welcome suggested text.

Note: ticket will be closed Friday 25th March unless the responses noted here do not address the concern. If the concern is still not addressed substantive reasoning would be appreciated.

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by luigi@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to resolved

The WG Chairs believe that the response provided is sufficient to close this issue.

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by luigi@…

  • Status changed from resolved to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.