Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Mon, 16 April 2007 14:47 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdSU6-00074y-8w; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdSU5-00074r-69 for ram@iab.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:13 -0400
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu ([18.26.0.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdSU2-0005Ut-Vq for ram@iab.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:13 -0400
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 4B9E1872F4; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: ram@iab.org
Subject: Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)
Message-Id: <20070416144704.4B9E1872F4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:47:04 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

    > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>

    > My question was in the context of LISP 1.5.

Dino just mentioned how LISP 1 is a "phase 0 prototype effort", and I suspect
the same is true, in some ways, of many of the lower numbered LISP variants.
My sense is that the one that gets deployed in large-scale operational
service is likely to be LISP 4 or 5 (or more), i.e. one that's not yet
defined.

My guess is that the architectural commonality between LISP 1/1.5/etc and the
eventual deployed stuff is likely to be:

- Hosts and local routers don't need to be modified
- The existing internetwork layer is "jacked up" to become mostly an
	end-end host naming layer
- End-end names are mapped into new locators as they cross the boundary

I think LISP is the first detailed proposal in the last half-decade or so to
propose operating in this particular architectural quadrant (which may well be
the only feasible one to operate in), and I suspect that's why it's getting a
lot of attention. However, the final product may look quite different from the
initial prototypes we have on paper now.

The current discussion seems to be a somewhat unfocussed mix of "can we
operate in this quadrant at all", and details of particular variants, trying
to sort of which particular approach (within the boundary lines above) works;
most of the current discussion is, of course, looking at how to do the
mapping, which is appropriate, because that's probably the hardest part.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram