Hi Darrel,
My point was not to say that DDT is a wrong approach. I am just looking
from user POV and wanted to see why DNS infra (which is relatively easy
to reuse) would not offer me the off the shelf open source tools to
build a mapping plane. Do you really expect that every SP potentially
interested in LISP will develop it's own mapping plane code ?
If you look at bigger picture we are right there in the IETF with the
need for inter-as globally scoped information distribution. Some push to
use BGP new SAFI as an overlay for CDNI, some put more data onto
existing DNS, yet some develop new point protocols (DDT). That clearly
proves to me the need to have a common service bus .. perhaps reusing a
lot of BGP attributes however allowing very easy flexibility for new
types of information transport without need to go to IETF and each time
argue for 2 years to justify new SAFI.
Openlisp as far as I see have no mapping plane code available. I guess
the ALT failed as it would have to include full BGP. Maybe with DDT you
will have more luck. Contrary openlisp.org has ITR code which
practically I would rather have hardware based. Mapping plane is x86/vm
appliance based so it would be much more important to download and run
(if one needs LISP).
Last I was not clear from any presentations how DDT would inter-operate
with ALT. Well perhaps there is no issue with migration yet however as
we are at the experimental mode and it would be great to see how
easy/difficult is to migrate one mapping plane to the other.
Best regards,
R.
On Mar 27, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
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.
<snip>
This thread has documented some of the reasons why the authors
decided to develop DDT instead of re-using DNS (documented in
LISP-TREE). In addition to these, the DDT authors felt that
operational experience with LISP+ALT (which re-used BGP and GRE for
distributing EID Prefixes) showed that re-using another protocol,
while inheriting many useful features, also brought in many un-needed
features which added bloat to the implementation and operational
complexity to the network.
<snip>
If not .. if DDT approach can not be serviced by DNS architecture I
think it would be very useful to document why.
Other mapping systems have been explored before with LISP, to various
levels of maturity. (EMACS, CONS, etc). Its my understanding that
the LISP-TREE draft will be updated to reflect the work done to date,
which should include the limitations of this approach.
Also in the same time it would be great to announce plans for open
source DDT support ?
All are welcome to contribute to the Open Source LISP (the scope of
which includes the mapping system) effort. More information can be
found at http://www.openlisp.org/).
Regards,
-Darrel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
