Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Randy Bush]

you want to give ops feedback to the ietf, well ...

i suggest a loc/id session at the next nanog, 20-30 mins each for
  LISP
  ILNP
  6296

where each is explained at an architectural level in some detail with
also a predeterimied list of questions such as "how does this address
loc/id separation, routing table scaling, incremental deployment, state
of implementation/testing, ..."

and then a half hour where someone sums up the similarities and
differences.

and someone writes it up.

randy

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> not to quibble but i thought 6296 was stateless.


AFAICT, the translators themselves are just rewriting addresses and not paying 
attention to 'connections', which is all to the good.  But then we get to this:

-

5.2.  Recommendations for Application Writers

   Several mechanisms (e.g., STUN [RFC5389], Traversal Using Relays
   around NAT (TURN) [RFC5766], and Interactive Connectivity
   Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245]) have been used with traditional IPv4
   NAT to circumvent some of the limitations of such devices.  Similar
   mechanisms could also be applied to circumvent some of the issues
   with an NPTv6 Translator.  However, all of these require the
   assistance of an external server or a function co-located with the
   translator that can tell an "internal" host what its "external"
   addresses are.

-

---
Roland Dobbins  // 

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Randy Bush]

> I also view RFC6296 as a perpetuation of the clear violation of the
> end-to-end principle (i.e., ' . . . functions placed at low levels of
> a system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the
> cost of providing them at that low level . . .') embodied in the
> abomination of NAT/PAT into IPv6, and the consequent instantiation of
> yet more unnecessary and harmful state into networks which are already
> deep in the throes of autogenic thromboembolism.

great rant.  not to quibble but i thought 6296 was stateless.

randy

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:

> - enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP

Separation of locator/ID is a fundamental architectural principle which 
transcends transport-specific (i.e., IPv4/IPv6) considerations.  It allows for 
node/application/services agility, and in the case of the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, 
besides providing a way to solve mobility and to do on-demand dynamic 
provisioning/on-the-fly-reprovisioning of communications relationships, finally 
starts us down the long-overdue evolution towards an eventual fully out-of-band 
control plane.

Controlling routing-table excursion in the IPv4/IPv6 Internet was/is the 
tactical problem that LISP was/is intended to address (pardon the pun), but the 
above long-term strategic benefits are its real value, IMHO.

> - enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296


In light of the above, I view LISP and RFC6296 as orthogonal to one another.  

I also view RFC6296 as a perpetuation of the clear violation of the end-to-end 
principle (i.e., ' . . . functions placed at low levels of a system may be 
redundant or of little value when compared with the cost of providing them at 
that low level . . .') embodied in the abomination of NAT/PAT into IPv6, and 
the consequent instantiation of yet more unnecessary and harmful state into 
networks which are already deep in the throes of autogenic thromboembolism.

---
Roland Dobbins  // 

The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Fred Baker]

On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:

> At this point, it might be interesting to do the following:
> 
> - enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
> - enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296
> - execute a cost/benefit analysis on both solutions

I'll let a LISP advocate state the values of LISP. My perception: it's a lot of 
overhead for what you actually get, comparable to building what Cisco once 
called "fast switching" into the network.

In looking at 6296, I was trying to find a way to make edge networks be willing 
to use PA addresses instead of PI. If you have one ISP and never want to change 
ISPs, PA is wonderful; if you have multiple ISPs, the prevailing multihoming 
model in the IETF calls for you to have a subnet from each of your upstream 
prefixes on each LAN and to have your host divine which address pair implies 
the most acceptable route to your destination. If you have any ISP's prefix on 
your LAN and you want to remove the ISP (change to a different one, stop using 
one, whatever), you are somehow buried in renumbering (See RFC 4192). Edge 
networks are not crazy about renumbering, and they're not crazy about having a 
prefix per ISP on each LAN - hence PI. So, to get edge networks to use PA 
addresses, I reason that the edge network needs an address that is not derived 
from its upstream, and it has to be translated to the prefix of the upstream. 
The other factor (how to not require a change to TCP/UDP checksums) is the 
checksum update.

So to my way of thinking, NPTv6 provides a way to statelessly (e.g. scalably) 
enable any host to talk with any host and at the same time make the edge 
network look PA to the upstream, has the managability characteristics of PI in 
the edge network, and not have to change TCP/UDP.

LISP, to my knowledge, provides no way to push back on route table growth (it 
moves it from the transit network to the edge network, but the edge network 
still has to deal with it).

To my mind, if you liked stateful NAT in IPv4, you'll like stateless NPTv6 in 
IPv6 better.

With that, I'll return you to your more operational musings. I'm with the IETF. 
Please feel free to inform the world on how clueless I am operationally. I'm 
already convinced of the fact; that's why I talk with and listen to operators.

RE: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Ronald Bonica]

Scott,

I am not so sure that Randy's suggestion can be dismissed out of hand.

When we started down the path of locator/identifier separation, we did so 
because the separation of locators and identifiers might solve some real 
operational problems. We were not so interested in architectural purity.

At this point, it might be interesting to do the following:

- enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
- enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296
- execute a cost/benefit analysis on both solutions

  Ron


> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:39 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the
> IETF)
> 
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush  wrote:
> > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
> >
> > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
> >     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
> >
> > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
> >
> > randy
> 
> No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
> even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
> routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).
> 
> Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
> things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
> When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
> have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
> much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
> address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
> already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
> can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention".  I've invited
> people to promote it and nobody stepped up.
> 
> Scott

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Fred Baker]

On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>> 
>> 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
>> June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>> 
>> which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
>> 
>> randy
> 
> No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
> even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
> routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).

interesting, because that is exactly what Mike O'Dell suggested it as - a 
prefix/identification (loc/id) split. If you're going to take your line of 
reasoning, ILNP doesn't provide an identifier (as the term is defined in RFC 
1992), and neither does LISP except as it redefines the terms to make it do. 
You're looking for something along the lines of HIP - which has other problems.

I would describe NPTv6 as a location/identifier split in the sense that it 
makes the endpoint identifier in the IPv6 address independent of ISP's prefix - 
the PA (and therefore aggregatable) prefixes used outside the edge network are 
translated to the prefix used within the shop, and the host doesn't have to 
mess with them. As you point out, PA prefixes help with the route table - we 
aren't carrying infinite numbers of PI prefixes.

To my way of thinking, shim6 was DOA if anything because it transferred the 
complexity of managing the route table from the transit networks to the edge 
networks, and the edge networks lacked both the expertise and the desire to 
deal with it. Folks are trampling the RIRs to get PI prefixes to avoid the 
multi-prefix model. But making the route table aggregate requires PA prefixes. 
Deploying ILNP (which is in many ways superior) requires a change to the 
TCP/UDP pseudoheader. Deploying NPTv6 makes the edge network look PA to the 
transit network, PI to the edge network, and doesn't change TCP. There is a 
headache with http/sip/etc referrals, which are better served if they use 
domain names anyway. But to my mind referrals have a solution if people choose 
to use it, so it's a solvable problem. So to me, NPTv6 fits pretty nicely.

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Scott Brim]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09, Fred Baker  wrote:
> I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed 
> changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.

I guess I should clarify: I think ILNP is elegant.  But the real
Internet evolves incrementally, and only as needed.  Other
trajectories are much more likely.

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[steve ulrich]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne  wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, "Scott Brim"  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>> >
>> > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
>> >     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>> >
>> > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
>> >
>> > randy
>>
>> No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
>> even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
>> routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).
>>
>> Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
>> things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
>> When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
>> have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
>> much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
>> address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
>> already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
>> can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention".  I've invited
>> people to promote it and nobody stepped up.
>>
>
> "Difficult" depends on your time horizon. Ipv6 is/was difficult. Sctp is
> difficult, but I remain bullish on its value. ILNP may be more difficult,
> but i believe it is strategically correct.
>
> We can disagree on merits of competing RESEARCH  topics. I am just providing
> "ops feedback ", to bring this thread full circle.
>
> Lastly, we must make sure that LISP does not become the next 6to4 where good
> intentions for RESEARCH  become a quantifiable network nightmare.

i would agree that LISP hasn't necessarily improved the root problem
posed.  however, on this front nor it hasn't done any harm. the
intriguing elements with LISP for me personally, are in all of the
adjunct capabilities that a L/I split enables.  there are some very
valid and interesting applications that this enables and some novel
technology capabilities that are exercised. (useful endpoint mobility,
novel load balancing, encap data plane liveness, etc.) researching and
getting our hands dirty as an industry with these technologies has
considerable value.  without actually poking at running code and
pushing bits over these interfaces we run the risk of letting the
perfect be the enemy of the good.  i like the fact that this research
let's us gauge how far from perfect the current state of the art is.

fwiw - while there are folks that see LISP as an impending ops
nightmare (if you don't like it, don't use it.) there are a number of
folks for whom it provides compelling solutions to real problems that
they have and they're keen on using it to solve those problems or
explore the solution space. to that end i don't know that we need to
make sure that LISP doesn't become anything.  we need to find
solutions to problems and rationally explore those solutions and
incrementally enhance them.

yes. i participate in the LISP research test bed in my (very) small way.

-- 
steve ulrich (sulrich@botwerks.*)

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Fred Baker]

On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:

> Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
> things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
> When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
> have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
> much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
> address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
> already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
> can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention".  I've invited
> people to promote it and nobody stepped up.

I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed changes 
to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.

Re: in defense of lisp

[Cameron Byrne]

On Jul 13, 2011 7:50 AM, "Seth Mos"  wrote:
>
> Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
> > > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>
> The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
> everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections
here.
>
> As a 1:1 NAT mechanism it works pretty well, I can reach the outside,
> and the outside can reach me. Which I think is what was intended in the
> specifications. And pretty much the internet.
>
> It took me 4 months to write the IPv6 support in pfSense to what it is
> today. Which is not feature complete. But the NPT part was just a few
> hours in the grand scheme.
>
> I've also contacted the nice people from the draft that we support it.
>
> Since then we've got v4 and v6 with BGP at work so it's moot. But I
digress.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Seth Mos
> pfSense developer.
>
>

Thank you for your work.

CB

> > >
> > > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
> > >  June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
> > >
> > > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
> > >
> > > randy
> > >
> > >
>

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Cameron Byrne]

On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, "Scott Brim"  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush  wrote:
> > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
> >
> > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
> > June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
> >
> > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
> >
> > randy
>
> No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
> even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
> routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).
>
> Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
> things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
> When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
> have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
> much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
> address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
> already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
> can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention".  I've invited
> people to promote it and nobody stepped up.
>

"Difficult" depends on your time horizon. Ipv6 is/was difficult. Sctp is
difficult, but I remain bullish on its value. ILNP may be more difficult,
but i believe it is strategically correct.

We can disagree on merits of competing RESEARCH  topics. I am just providing
"ops feedback ", to bring this thread full circle.

Lastly, we must make sure that LISP does not become the next 6to4 where good
intentions for RESEARCH  become a quantifiable network nightmare.

Cb

Re: in defense of lisp

[Seth Mos]

Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
> > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at

The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections here.

As a 1:1 NAT mechanism it works pretty well, I can reach the outside,
and the outside can reach me. Which I think is what was intended in the
specifications. And pretty much the internet.

It took me 4 months to write the IPv6 support in pfSense to what it is
today. Which is not feature complete. But the NPT part was just a few
hours in the grand scheme.

I've also contacted the nice people from the draft that we support it.

Since then we've got v4 and v6 with BGP at work so it's moot. But I digress.

Kind regards,

Seth Mos
pfSense developer.


> >
> > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
> >  June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
> >
> > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
> >
> > randy
> >
> >

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Scott Brim]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush  wrote:
> btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>
> 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
>     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>
> which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
>
> randy

No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).

Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention".  I've invited
people to promote it and nobody stepped up.

Scott

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Randy Bush]

btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at

6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
 June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space

randy

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Jeff Wheeler]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> I fear that at its worst and most successful, LISP ensures ipv4 is the
>> backbone transport media to the detriment of ipv6 and at its best, it
>> is a distraction for folks that need to be making ipv6 work, for real.
>
> i suspect that a number of lisp proponents are of that mind.  i do not
> think it does a service to the internet.

My understanding is that transport over v6 is indeed on everyone's
mind and absolutely is a goal for all the LISP people.  So on this
particular point, your concern is being addressed.

What LISP has not done is actually improve the root problem of scaling
up the number of multi-homed networks or locators.  The cache scheme
works if you imagine an ideal Internet where there is no DoS, but
otherwise, it does not work.  All the same problems of flow-cache
routing still exist and LISP actually makes them worse in some cases,
not better.  It also adds huge complexity and risk but what value it
adds (outside of VPN-over-Internet) is questionable at best.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler 
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Randy Bush]

>> i will not dispute this, not my point.  but i have to respect dino and
>> the lisp fanboys (and, yes, they are all boys) for actually *doing*
>> something after 30 years of loc/id blah blah blah (as did hip).  putting
>> their, well dino's, code where their mouths were and going way out on a
>> limb.

[ i have been correctly reminded that dino is far from the only lisp
  hacker these days, e.g. http://www.openlisp.org/ being notable. ]

> Understood. But watch for similarities between 6to4 and LISP. Both are
> clever, both have great intentions, both are extremely dangerous once
> people start thinking this is anything beyond a toy.

again, i will not dispute this.  it is not my point.

> And when lowly plebeians like myself hear that research folks at iij
> and Facebook are doing "something" with LISP, we think that is a
> blessing of this technology.

when you hear that research folk are doing something, the best guess
would be that it's research. :)

> But, after the "fan boy" chatter dies down, you hear that this is not
> actually support, it's just engineers doing "Dino" a favor.

not exactly.  someone i respect is doing some r&d.  we do r&d.  we all
help each other.  vendors are kind enough to loan kit to researchers.
this does not mean they endorse all of our r&ds projects, just that they
endorse and help r&d.  our job is to make the internet a better place.

on the ops side, when things break, isps all help each other, loan line
cards, do remote hands, etc., whether our marketing departments compete
or not.  our job is to keep the internet running well.

> I fear that at its worst and most successful, LISP ensures ipv4 is the
> backbone transport media to the detriment of ipv6 and at its best, it
> is a distraction for folks that need to be making ipv6 work, for real.

i suspect that a number of lisp proponents are of that mind.  i do not
think it does a service to the internet.

> PS. I think the research guys should give more time to ILNP

looks interesting but i am unaware of a public code base or research
testbed.  whack me with a clue bat.

randy

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Cameron Byrne]

On Jul 12, 2011 5:21 PM, "Randy Bush"  wrote:
>
> > W.R.T. to LISP,  in defense of the IETF or the IRTF, i do not believe
> > "the IETF" has told the world that LISP is the best fit for the
> > Internet or solves any specific problem well.
> >
> > The IETF has never said the "Internet Architecture" is going to LISP,
> > and it likely will not / cannot.  My expectation is that LISP will go
> > away as quickly as it came.
>
> i will not dispute this, not my point.  but i have to respect dino and
> the lisp fanboys (and, yes, they are all boys) for actually *doing*
> something after 30 years of loc/id blah blah blah (as did hip).  putting
> their, well dino's, code where their mouths were and going way out on a
> limb.
>

Understood. But watch for similarities between 6to4 and LISP. Both are
clever, both have great intentions, both are extremely dangerous once people
start thinking this is anything beyond a toy.  And when lowly plebeians like
myself hear that research folks at iij and Facebook are doing "something"
with LISP, we think that is a blessing of this technology. But, after the
"fan boy" chatter dies down, you hear that this is not actually support,
it's just engineers doing "Dino" a favor.

I admittedly have dismissed LISP early on and do not understand its merits ,
the idea of ip in ip tunnels as the new internet architecture gives me
indigestion.  I am also concerned about  the questionable business case of
why edge networks would make investments to bail out DFZ providers (the main
point of LISP).  If ipv6 was a hard sell, I can't even imagine making LISP
get traction. If the economics are not right, it will never fly, and the
economics of LISP are all wrong. Please, spare me line about how LISP is
just a knob I turn and has no cost.

I fear that at its worst and most successful, LISP ensures ipv4 is the
backbone transport media to the detriment of ipv6 and at its best, it is a
distraction for folks that need to be making ipv6 work, for real.

Cb

PS. I think the research guys should give more time to ILNP and creating a
graceful unwind of ipv4 and NAT.  The dividends from ipv6 only start to
really pay when ipv4 becomes optional. My 2 cents, and no more.

> i am *not* saying i would run it in an operational network.  but maz-san
> and i were happy to help the experiment by dropping the first asian node
> in a test rack on the public net.
>
> randy

in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Randy Bush]

> W.R.T. to LISP,  in defense of the IETF or the IRTF, i do not believe
> "the IETF" has told the world that LISP is the best fit for the
> Internet or solves any specific problem well.
> 
> The IETF has never said the "Internet Architecture" is going to LISP,
> and it likely will not / cannot.  My expectation is that LISP will go
> away as quickly as it came.

i will not dispute this, not my point.  but i have to respect dino and
the lisp fanboys (and, yes, they are all boys) for actually *doing*
something after 30 years of loc/id blah blah blah (as did hip).  putting
their, well dino's, code where their mouths were and going way out on a
limb.

i am *not* saying i would run it in an operational network.  but maz-san
and i were happy to help the experiment by dropping the first asian node
in a test rack on the public net.

randy