[142804] 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 11:28:06 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 11:22:33 -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:
> 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
>>=20
>> 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
>> June 2011. (Format: TXT=3D73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>>=20
>> which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
>>=20
>> randy
>=20
> 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).
interesting, because that is exactly what Mike O'Dell suggested it as - =
a prefix/identification (loc/id) split. If you're going to take your =
line of reasoning, ILNP doesn't provide an identifier (as the term is =
defined in RFC 1992), and neither does LISP except as it redefines the =
terms to make it do. You're looking for something along the lines of HIP =
- which has other problems.
I would describe NPTv6 as a location/identifier split in the sense that =
it makes the endpoint identifier in the IPv6 address independent of =
ISP's prefix - the PA (and therefore aggregatable) prefixes used outside =
the edge network are translated to the prefix used within the shop, and =
the host doesn't have to mess with them. As you point out, PA prefixes =
help with the route table - we aren't carrying infinite numbers of PI =
prefixes.
To my way of thinking, shim6 was DOA if anything because it transferred =
the complexity of managing the route table from the transit networks to =
the edge networks, and the edge networks lacked both the expertise and =
the desire to deal with it. Folks are trampling the RIRs to get PI =
prefixes to avoid the multi-prefix model. But making the route table =
aggregate requires PA prefixes. Deploying ILNP (which is in many ways =
superior) requires a change to the TCP/UDP pseudoheader. Deploying NPTv6 =
makes the edge network look PA to the transit network, PI to the edge =
network, and doesn't change TCP. There is a headache with http/sip/etc =
referrals, which are better served if they use domain names anyway. But =
to my mind referrals have a solution if people choose to use it, so it's =
a solvable problem. So to me, NPTv6 fits pretty nicely.=
