LISP Works - Re: Facebook Issues/Outage in Southeast?

Wed Sep 29 01:27:07 UTC 2010

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Job W. J. Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> On 24 sep 2010, at 02:56, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 5:50 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
>>>> --- jared at puck.nether.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's working over LISP:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lisp4.facebook.com/
>>>> -------------------------------------
>
>>> Wow, that's cool.  I didn't know LISP had progressed that far...
>
> Yes, LISP is good for you! :-)
>
>> I would have to agree, i am surprised that there is a single Cisco
>> 3800 series router running test code of LISP at any content
>> provider.... which is all this is.  Facebook made it clear that LISP
>> was an experiment, not a technology direction.  I don't think this
>> example represents anything in particular.  As a network operator, i
>> am afraid LISP is going to turn into the next 6to4 .. an interesting
>> idea that causes more harm than good.  Sorry to the fans of 6to4 and
>> LISP, i just long for the day when real IPv6 restores the real e2e
>> internet without strange trickery along the way.
>
>
> There is a huge difference between using LISP and 6to4 that you're not considering here.
>

Agreed, my context for the comment was narrow.

> 6to4 was specifically invented to solve the particular problem of IPv6/IPv4 transition. That is its sole purpose for existence.
>
> LISP was not invented to solve this problem - it was invented to address a much broader set of problems that neither IPv4 or IPv6 address (e.g. overloaded address semantics, multi-homing simplicity, IP mobility, and address portability).
>
> The fact that LISP does help in IPv6 Transition solutions (due to its inherent AF agnostic design), is compelling. As you say, real edge 2 edge is the goal - and LISP helps here, regardless of the AF. (you'll will still want to do multi-homing in IPv6, and ingress TE, and mobility, etc.).
>

Sorry, when i said e2e w.r.t IPv6 i was talking about end to end, not
edge to edge.  I think there is a big difference.

There are a lot of solutions in this space, and no clear winner is the
official outcome, for now.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-14

IMHO, ILNP is the more interesting solution and avoids expensive
encapsulation and questionable assumptions about ISP MTU, all my ISP
links are GigE and 10GigE and they are all set to default 1500 bytes
... good or bad, this is just how they roll off the line from every
ISP in every city i buy transit... and LISP tunnels do not work so
well with 1500 byte MTU.

The only real take away here is that routers will continue to route on
the internet, for now.  They even route IPv6 well, today.

Cameron

=======
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta
=======

> So it won't have the the same fate as 6to4.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job Snijders