> From: David Conrad <[email protected]>
>> The question to ask is whether LISP is an appropriate solution to
>> the problems discussed at the IAB's October, 2006 Routing and
>> Addressing Workshop.
>> ...
>> Yet the LISP proponents still did not adequately address these concerns.
> Perhaps the reasons LISP proponents haven't adequately addressed those
> concerns is because they are not addressable with the underlying LISP
> assumptions?
When thinking about the routing, it's also important to remember that LISP,
in the sense of 'a map-encaps scheme plus a mapping subsystem plus ancillary
glue' is likely (almost certainly?) just a component, almost more of a piece
of necessary substrate (to give us a way out of the current paint corner),
than a full-blown new routing approach. (I've referred before to how LISP
reminded me of simply the deployment plan for a new routing architecture I
worked on.)
Yes, LISP may do some routing-like things (e.g. support multi-homing, and
provide a certain amount of provider independence), but there's a limit to
what you can do with simply separating location and identity. At the end of
the day, we're still working with BGP, and if you want to do more with
_routing_ than BGP allows (e.g. control the paths for traffic aggregates),
then you need something _else_ new.
And deploying that new thing would almost certainly start with.... deploying
something that looks a lot like LISP. Add that to the fact that LISP gives
you a decent bang/buck _in and of itself_ (multi-homing, etc), and you soon
decide to focus on getting LISP done (right, with hooks for the future), and
worry about the rest later...
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
