[142795] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Brim)
Wed Jul 13 10:40:45 2011
In-Reply-To: <m27h7m8e7f.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:39:26 -0400
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>
> 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
> =A0 =A0 June 2011. (Format: TXT=3D73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>
> which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
>
> randy
No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).
Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
have been worth it? LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it. You
can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention". I've invited
people to promote it and nobody stepped up.
Scott
