Hi Fred, On 09/20/11 17:21, Templin, Fred L wrote: > >> Do I really want to go in the direction of requiring >> cryptography? I can't answer that unless you first >> tell me the intended domain of applicability. I don't >> think I have yet seen a use case analysis of the >> various scenarios where LISP xTRs and mapping systems >> would be deployed and used. There seems to be an >> unspoken assumption of deployment "in the public >> Internet", but what about Enterprise networks? >> What about MANETs? What about aviation networks? >> What about tactical military networks? What about >> cellular networks? What about home networks? >> > > That is the purpose of the deployment document. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-01 > > > From a brief look, that document appears to have quite a ways to > go until it considers a wider variety of use cases such as we have > addressed in RANGERS.
We know of other interesting use cases for LISP, but so far only documented the ones related to DFZ size, to stay on the WG charter. > The document also seems to carefully > step around the MTU issue, as if it were a booby trap to be always > on guard for. IRON (with SEAL) *solves* the MTU issue so that > there is no longer any need to worry about it. Until LISP truly > addresses the MTU issue (including accounting for the common > case of operators misconfiguring link MTUs) all LISP-related > documents will have to carefully dance around it. The main spec discusses two possible solutions to MTU issues in Section 5.4. I think we need more experimentation with LISP to discuss it at more detail in a deployment document (we do call attention to it at the end of Section 2.1). Best regards, Lorand Jakab _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
