Robert, > > During wg meeting today all presentations LISP-DDT, LISP-DDT-SEC and > LISP-DDT Database Transfer stated that this is very much like DNS.
See also the original LISP-TREE paper for more details on the benefits of such a mapping system http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/lisp-tree-dns-hierarchy-support-lisp-mapping-system > > Said this I would like to ask why not use new instance of DNS with > DNSSEC completely independent on current name resolution DNS here ? > > It walks like a duck .. it quacks like a duck .. it must be a duck ! > > Defining new set of records and leveraging a lot of work which went into > (and still going) into DNS one could think would make a lot of sense > rather then reinventing the wheel. > > If not .. if DDT approach can not be serviced by DNS architecture I > think it would be very useful to document why. Also in the same time it > would be great to announce plans for open source DDT support ? One of the issues that I see in reusing the DNS is the LISP would have to support the (very old) history of DNS and the various protocol extensions. Bitlabel would seem the best way of encoding mappings, but bitlabels have been deprecated http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3363 which means that LISP could not simply reuse existing DNS servers. If there are modifications required to the DNS, then seems more realistic to avoid using an already overloaded protocol like the DNS. Although I was initially in favor of reusing the DNS, I changed my mind... Olivier -- INL, ICTEAM, UCLouvain, Belgium, http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
