[142805] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ronald Bonica)
Wed Jul 13 12:05:30 2011
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:02:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP8MrGP-iVK4wYnO_ftQDx+M-5aEgus04MZ4y=Q-otem+g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Scott,
I am not so sure that Randy's suggestion can be dismissed out of hand.
When we started down the path of locator/identifier separation, we did so b=
ecause the separation of locators and identifiers might solve some real ope=
rational problems. We were not so interested in architectural purity.
At this point, it might be interesting to do the following:
- enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
- enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296
- execute a cost/benefit analysis on both solutions
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott.brim@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:39 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the
> IETF)
>=20
> 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
>=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).
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Scott
