Dino,
In spite of adding 4 locator octets you still need NAT !:-( C'mmon! And you try to sell it as a great feature! :-( Your position is: Thanks to NAT you have no ipv4 address depletion problem, right ?! NAT is indeed a great bail out (like GRE which I mentioned lately), but nevertheless a poor and cumbersome solution. And there are many IETF goers who know much much better than me about NAT's uglyness. And combined with LISP's servers infrastructure solutions become even more cumbersome. So I admit: NAT will keep LISP alive. But also: I expected LISP to be better: Having an IPv4 address plus a locator there is no need to depend on NAT i.e. on additional TCP octets in order to provide global uniqueness. LISP will cement the bad IPv4 AND IPv6 paradigms. Dino, you shouldn't point to IPv6 and say that IPv6 shall/will do better. In the past IPv6 has always emulated whichever IPv4 protocol. And IPv6 will rather emulate LISP than come up with better routing. You also wrote: "We do not want to change DNS. We do not require any new support from DNS." Well, TARA as outlined by draft-tara-hummel-00.txt only required DNS service as by RFC1712. Yes, Its current status however requires some extra DNS service which is to provide also a host's "home geopatch number" This I need for stateless multicast whereby the mobile sender is roaming. Do you think there will ever be such models with LISP ? So far you do not have a Multicast-Locator nor an Anycast Locator! Regards Heiner
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
