Dave,
Unless we're planning to scuttle the Internet and start from
scratch, IMHO it is inevitable that we will eventually need
some form of map-and-encaps. I don't believe that the solution
necessarily has to be LISP, but that is not intending to make
any statement wrt what you are trying to
Dave,
The task consisting in discovering by experimentation architectural fit
(wrt initial objectives) and complement understanding wrt known
challenges (mapping, caching, loc.reachability, impact on traffic
spatio-temporal properties) is very different in nature than ensuring
interoperability
So the question - that is not administrative - boils down imho to: can
we exclusively concentrate on the LISP protocol(s) specifics leaving the
issue of our confidence on the Loc/ID split and associated challenges
open. That question deserves imho a specific discussion that should
happen in the
Eliot:
-Original Message-
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:03 PM
To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
Cc: David Meyer; routing-discuss...@ietf.org;
int-area@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the
IESG
On 1/21/09 2:12 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
All items in the charter - see below - are exclusively oriented toward
LISP protocols implementation specifics, and interworking:
Right. This is a LISP WG. There is nothing stopping anyone from
creating another WG, assuming the work
Dimitri,
The task consisting in discovering by experimentation architectural fit
(wrt initial objectives) and complement understanding wrt known
challenges (mapping, caching, loc.reachability, impact on traffic
spatio-temporal properties) is very different in nature than ensuring
