> Am 28.09.2016 um 05:02 schrieb Dino Farinacci:
>>> When I spoke to some of the 5G folks this was clearly the direction and in
>>> fact Dino's LISP was one of the strongest candidates there as control
>>> plane.
>> The IETF’s LISP-DDT borrows ideas from DNS but does not need to be
>> structured like the DNS deployed today. There is hierarchy for scale with
>> iterative lookups, but we don’t have to allow it to get out of hand with too
>> many levels of hierarchy.
> What do you mean by that exactly? What's the problem with DNS and what's
> the advantage of LISP-DDT?
These were the main reasons we didn’t consider DNS as a mapping system back in
the RRG days when we were designing the mapping system for LISP:
(1) DNS didn’t work easily on bit boundaries. So delegation would have to be on
byte boundaries and that restricts the flexibility of how EID address
allocation occurs on the LISP-DDT hierarchy.
(2) DNS doesn’t have a pub/sub model. LISP needed notification support so old
RLOCs new when an EID has moved to a new set of RLOCs.
(3) Architecturally, we didn’t want routing information to be in an applicaiton
Directory. Since DNS depends on routing, we didn’t want routing to depend on
DNS and cause a circular dependency to be created.
(4) And we thought it would be too hard to get IETF to allow network layer
information to be stored in what is really a application level database.
So the architectural definition of a LISP EID would be in the DNS pointed to by
names and the dynamic binding of EIDs to RLOCs would be in a new network layer
database, which we refer to as the LISP Mapping System.
Dino
>
> Michael
>
>>
>> Dino
>>
>> ___
>> lisp mailing list
>> l...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
