Administration --------------------------------- Chairs remind the decision to move LISP to routing area. Deborah Brungard will be the new AD following the group activities. Chairs list of active documents draft-ietf-lisp-ddt is waiting for the shepherd writeup draft-ietf-lisp-impact is on last call Chairs asking about the plans for draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf the document has some very stable part about the procedure and the general format. It is suggested to focus the document on that part and propose clear procedure to decided how to add now types, via the creation of a dedicated IANA registry Luigi: will provide information about how this can be done with IANA Chairs asking about the plans for draft-ietf-lisp-sec Vina: indicates the document is stable since a long time and can be put in last call. Luigi: will review the document to decide if it can go for last call. WG Documents Update --------------------------------- LISP Threats (Damien Saucez) Ron: asks for clarification about the risk of threats caused by the mitigations themselves Damien: the document explains that the mitigation can be used for attacks and the threat model is such that it covers this case. Luigi: reminds that the draft is not about implementations details. Chairs asking if document is ready for last call: there was consensus on accepting last call. LISP Impact (Damien Saucez) Damien: asks people to share their experience with LISP on the mailing list. Chairs asking if document is ready for last call: there was consensus on accepting last call. LISP crypto (Dino Farinacci) Dino: summaries the comments from security experts. Dino: asks the attendees for deep review during the week. Dino: asks for inter-operatbility tests. Ron: asks for clarification on authentication and privacy in the exchanges. Non WG Documents --------------------------------- Signal-Free LISP Multicast (Dino Farinacci) Joel: asks for clarification on the number of layers. Dino: it can be up to 128 layers and explains how it works. Lucy: what type of packet travel from ITR to RTR? Dino: multicast packet encaspulated in unicast packet. : asks if the failure of the RTR can cause problems Dino: no single point of failure, you can have as many RTR as you want : asks how levelling is done and decided. Dino: that depends, this is the RLE that defines it. : Up to how many replication can an ITR replicate to? Dino: we tried replication of 4 and it worked. Luigi: what if you have multiple servers for the tree? Dino: in practice you should be register in the same place in the DDT so it should not cause problem. Luigi: ask to add the DDT discussion in the document Dino/Joel: explain that bi-directional flows are implemented using two different trees. Joel: the assumption is that the number of sources is small vs the number of destinations. This document does strictly solve that, other solutions have to be used if the number of sources is large. LISP YANG Model (A. Rodriguez-Natal) Joel: asks if authors have asked the YANG doctors to see if the choices are pertinents Alberto: not discussed with them yet. Dino: asks if DDT is covered. Alberto: says it is not covered it yet. Dino: asks how it can deal with different types of mapping system, one model per mapping system or a general one? Vina: the current model has the option to say which mapping system you use. Overflow Time/Discussion Chairs: what do we want to be put in the new charter? Darrel: we could start with some use cases. Dino: agrees with Darrel. We should give a chance to each of these use cases. Probably most is already there and few new machinery would be necessary. Larry: says that the group should look more on how to integrate with NVO3. Dino: if LISP solves the VM mobility use case, is that ok NVO3? Larry: it is one case among among others. Dino: asks if there is any use case in NVO3 that LISP can’t do. Dino: asks for new about draft-ietf-lisp-intro chairs: indicate that the last few fixes are being done.