Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: [email protected] > > > Why LISP 1.5=20? 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). > > Besides the reasons the Noel gave, which I agree on, using DNS generates more issues than solutions IMHO.
Not all DNS queries go through an ITR, since probably there will be a DNS cache inside the domain. Using DNS in this case means that synchronization between DNS caches and LISP caches is needed! This is already difficult IMO, and it is even worse if you think that DNS cache has been designed for a totally different purpose, which I do not think fits in the requirements of the LISP cache. Luigi > I don't know what the thinking of other people working on LISP is, but I can > give you my thoughts on this point. > > Simply put, I don't like designs which _invisibly, outside the host_ tie into > the DNS because it takes two separate subsystems (DNS resolution, and basic > packet forwarding), and tangles them together, which is bad engineering for a > number of reasons (makes it harder to make further changes, creates more > mutual dependencies, increases overall fragility/brittleness, etc). > > Some NAT variants do this too, and I especially didn't like them either! :-) > > Noel > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
