> Hi, > > During wg meeting today all presentations LISP-DDT, LISP-DDT-SEC and > LISP-DDT Database Transfer stated that this is very much like DNS. > > Likewise the drafts say it too: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-lisp-ddt-00 > > Conceptually, > this is similar to the way that a client of the Domain Name System > (DNS) follows referrals (DNS responses that contain only NS records) > from a series of DNS servers until it finds an answer. > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wiley-lisp-ddtxfer-01.txt > > Think of a LISP-DDT query as the analog to a DNS name server (NS) > query, and a LISP map request as the analog to a DNS address (A) > query (LISP-DDT does not store the EID to RLOC mappings returned in a > map request).
What we mean is that it uses the same models as DNS. It does not use the DNS protocol. > 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 ! Because it is too hard to encode long power-of-2 addresses in the DNS name string. > 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. And we did not want features like recursive lookups and DNSSEC, per spec. > 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 ? Dino > > Many thx, > R. > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
