Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06
review-ietf-lisp-gpe-06-tsvart-telechat-westerlund-2018-09-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2018-09-25
Requested 2018-09-10
Draft last updated 2018-09-21
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Christopher Wood (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -06 by Magnus Westerlund
Assignment Reviewer Magnus Westerlund
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lisp-gpe-06-tsvart-telechat-westerlund-2018-09-21
Reviewed rev. 06
Review result On the Right Track
Review completed: 2018-09-21

Review
review-ietf-lisp-gpe-06-tsvart-telechat-westerlund-2018-09-21

This new version resolved some of the issues, but there are still some issues to resolve. 

1. The document is missing the applicability analysis for using UDP zeron checksum to carry either Ethernet or NHS. Each of the incapsulation formats needs an individual analysis. 

2. The Ethernet encapsulation and possible also the the NHS needs considerations for congestion control. Where the regular LISP encapuslates only IP, which is assumed to be congestion controlled traffic itself. The same assumption cannot normally be made for Ethernet. So please provide either an argumentation why that would work, or consider what mechanism are needed here to at least prevent that a particular LISP tunnel results in persistent congestion of the path it uses. I would think some type of circuit breaker is appropriate for this usage. I make these comments from the assumption that LISP will be run on top of a multi provider network without guarranted resources, such as the Internet.