Joel,
I honestly thought that LISP would maintain/provide global uniqueness by the
doublet
{LISP-site unique IPv4 address of the EID; Locator} and only in case my memory
doesn't deceive me it was once (long ago) a pro-argument of LISP.
Given this assumption you must admit that only LISP-DNS would work, not -ALT,
nor -DDT, and that under such a presumption my emails would have really
mattered for THIS group.
By Dino's yesterday email I learned that LISP-DDT presumes global uniqueness of
the IPv4 address which means
more NAT, and not less NAT. He also mentioned IPv6-NAT which can pretty easyily
be predicted: Company XYZ switches from IPv4 to IPv6 but wants to keep its NAT.
The result: Complexity induces even more complexity.
Facit: At least myself I have learned that NAT is the ultimate solution ( and
not LISP-DDT) for this particular problem.
Heiner
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]>
An: heinerhummel <[email protected]>
Cc: lisp <[email protected]>
Verschickt: Fr, 18 Jan 2013 11:51 pm
Betreff: Re: [lisp] LISP and IPv4
Heiner, I am having trouble determining what you would like the working
group to do with your input.
You keep mentioning TARA. There is no Internet-Draft for TARA, and even
if there were, it would be out of scope for this working group.
Your concerns about overlapping addresses, seem to be aimed at use cases
which while interesting are not within the charter of the working group.
Dino has nonetheless gone out of his way to address your comments.
What are you looking for?
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern, speaking as co-chair
On 1/18/2013 5:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
