Brian,

> Can you give a little more background on these two points,
> for those who aren't following things that closely:
> 
> >     o Significant global deployment is underway

        Check http://www.lisp4.net (IPv4) or http://www.lisp6.net
        (IPv6). There's a schematic of the global network
        there. Basically we're trying to get the RIRs to be at
        the topic level; you'll note that we have RIPE, ARIN, a
        LACNIC "proxy" (UY), and are working with the APNIC
        folks. Below that, we're trying to do a kind of regional
        (contential) aggregation, etc. There are roughly 30
        routers deployed, and 5 or 6 are in the pipeline. 

        In addition, there are a growing number of hosts behind
        the xTRs (i.e., in EID space, either 153.16/16 or
        2610:D0:/32), scattered around the planet. For example,
        the NTT US folks have put up http://lisp4.ameri.ca (v4
        only), http://lisp6.ameri.ca (v6 only) or
        http://lisp.ameri.ca (dual stack). 

        BTW, if you reach www.lisp{4,6}.net (or the mirrors on
        lispX.ameri.ca) from outside the LISP world, then you are
        using the Proxy Tunnel Router (PTR) technology described
        in draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt (note that the
        draft has timed out; we'll have an update today or
        tomorrow, and let me know if you need a copy of -01.txt).

        If you look at http:/www.translate.lisp4.net, you're
        using the other interworking technique, LISP translation
        (i.e., LISP NAT).

> >     o We have 2 (or more) implementations
> 
> What's the nature of the deployment, 

        Answered above, I think. Let me know if you have other
        questions. 

> and am I correct in thinking that only one of the
> implementations is from a core router vendor?

        Sort or. We of course have Dino's implementation. There
        is also other ongoing LISP work in IOS (still
        evolving). I don't know about other vendors.

        You can also find OpenLISP (an open source freebsd LISP
        implementation) at http://gforge.info.ucl.ac.be/projects/openlisp.
        We are also actively looking at a Linux OpenLISP port.

> Those questions being asked and answered, I don't personally
> see that another BOF is called for. The IESG just has to make its
> normal assessment of whether the support is broad enough.

        Thanks for your comments Brian. Very helpful.

        Dave

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to