We are not supplanting the mechanism for routing. There is a layer above routing that can (1) pull like DNS, and/or (2) push like BGP to realize an overlay.
Dino > On Sep 11, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Kyle Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > but this doesn't specifically address the fact that a pull-based control > > plane will fail in a different way, and one that is potentially harder to > > diagnose, from a push-based one. One area in which it differs is that a > > loss of a BGP session followed by a network partition is obvious to all > > users trying to move traffic between those two networks, while choking off > > control plane traffic in LISP may only affect some endpoints in a > > mysterious way. > > IMO, a feature and not a bug. And arguably harder to diagnose makes it more > secure. > > Possibly. But being better or worse isn't my point, so much that it's > *different* in a material way from a security perspective. Those deltas are > where something proposing to supplant the prevailing mechanism for DFZ > routing needs to be clear to operators. > > Kyle > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
