> On 11 Aug 2015, at 00:39, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It would be worth for the WG to consider dropping the scalability aspects, >> focus on the overlay technology itself, and possibly move the work >> on standard track. > > Could we use different wording rather than “dropping the scalability > aspects”. I know you mean to core routing table scalability items. But we > don’t want to convey in the charter that for the various overlay use-cases > LISP can provide that it won’t scale. That is “scale of the protocol” and > “having the protocol solve the Internet scalability problem” are two > different and orthongonal items.
Agreed. That was just me being lazy writing. ;-) What I meant was exactly the Internet routing table scalability, not the scalability of the protocol. ciao L. > > And I think LISP should continue to scale the Internet, it just should not be > the only or main focus of what LISP can provide. > > Dino > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
