Hi Dave, > -----Original Message----- > From: David Meyer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:05 PM > To: Yakov Rekhter > Cc: [email protected]; rrg; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [rrg] [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from > the IESG asto whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP > > Yakov, > > > In answering this question we need to keep in mind that such > > techniques as (a) caching routing and forwarding information, (b) > > use of separate mapping system for Loc/ID mapping, (c) relying on > > probing for determining path feasibility are essential/fundamental > > to LISP. > > (c) is clearly not fundemental to LISP. > > What is fundemental (IMO) to any Loc/ID split > architecture is what have what we have termed the Locator > Path Liveness problem. How that problem is solved is a > matter for each architecture to consider. > > In particular, probing is a solution to the Locator Path > Liveness problem, but as we know from shim6 (etc), the > complexity of that isn't pretty. But then either is the > O(n!) complexity of BGP path hunting. In any event, the > space of potential solutions for map-and-encap schemes > such as LISP (or eFIT, Ivip, etc) haven't been throughly > explored. This is part of the reason why we think LISP > should be EXPERIMENTAL.
Not meaning to pick on you, but I don't understand why RANGER hasn't made it onto the "short list" of proposals yet; maybe you could answer that for me? AFAICT, RANGER is in the top-two map/encaps proposals in terms of technical completeness (maybe even the top-one) so can we have folks add it to their lists? Thanks - Fred [email protected] > > In other words, these techniques form the foundation of > > LISP. > > With respect to LISP and probing, that statement is > incorrect. > > Dave > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
