[142800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Wed Jul 13 11:12:31 2011
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP8MrGP-iVK4wYnO_ftQDx+M-5aEgus04MZ4y=Q-otem+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:09:21 -0400
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> 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.
I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed =
changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.=
