In einer eMail vom 26.01.2009 17:24:51 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
> Prior arguing with long-path, stretch etc. I have another > informative question (maybe I missed something too during the > discussion): Why LISP 1.5 ? Why not LISP 2 ? or directly: > Why doesn't the ITR intercept and enhance the DNS lookup as to also > request the eRLOC address in addition to the dest IP address? It can > also intercept the respective response and store (EID, eRLOC). OK. My concern is still how to get the geographical coordinates of the egress-(DFZ-)router 1) Because not all communication uses DNS. OK. There will be other ways, too, as to get the geo.coordinates 2) Because DNS queries go out one xTR and replies can come in through another xTR. This shouldn't bother neither solution, particularly not if the mentioned intercepting router is the ingress router nor in the ideal case when even the source host learns to handle the returned geo.coordinates (e.g. by some small Microsoft update). 3) Because you don't want a architectural circular dependency between directory and routing. OK. Wouldn't affect my solution. Do you want more reasons? Please. I have always appreciated your answering of my questions. BTW, I am grateful for the default mapper mechanism, which helps me to solve my incremental deployment issue. Thank you so much. Heiner Dino
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
