in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

Wed Jul 13 16:02:13 UTC 2011

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 because the separation of locators and identifiers might solve some real operational 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 at 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)
> 
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush <randy at 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.
> >     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 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