If I understood correctly, LISP, ivip and other similar proposals are mainly based on one assumption: host should not be changed because the cost of host change is believed to be much larger than that of router change. At least, the recent discussion about the tradeoff between initial packet delay/loss and the scalability of the mapping system is based on that assumption. That is to say, the EID->RLOC mapping query is initialized by the ITR, but not host. Provided that host could be changed and could do the EID-RLOC mapping query on behalf of ITR and carry the obtained RLOC information in the packets, most of the pain discussed recently in RRG mail-list will not exist.
If the above assumption (host should not be change and still use IPv4) is true, how will LISP, ivip and other similar proposals deal with the address depletion problem? Should we still use NAT to solve the address depletion issues? If so, we would have to tolerate the side-effect of NAT on the new application design and deployment, especially peer-to-peer applications which has already accounted for 80% in total internet traffic volume nowadays. Or should we adopt IPv6 (IPv6 can be adopted as EID in the above proposals) to solve the address depletion problem? If so, the change of host is unavoidable and this is conflicted with the basic assumption of the above proposals. Or should we operate on the Internet multiple times to solve the many existing problems one by one? If the deadline of the routing scalability issue is close to that of the address depletion issue, why not solve them in one solution? I doubt why the draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01 doesn't take the IPv4 address depletion into account for a new routing and addressing architecture. Best regards, Xiaohu XU
