david: > LISP is _an_ approach towards routing scalability.
providing it does not transpose the scalability problem at another level e.g mapping system (including at the edge TR), this point is related to the granularity of the mapping function and the EID/RLOC space ratio. also, the data-driven behaviour of LISP - its dynamics is driven by the spatio-temporal characteristics of the traffic and not only the prefix reachability (as in existing routing system) - adds dependencies to the "equation" of routing system design. => i would be less affirmative in making such statement -a priori-. in order to consolidate our understanding, the charter should include an item on how LISP addresses routing scalability and other design goals (at least as much as the experiment result allows). this would at the same time close the loop with part of the RRG work. thanks, -dimitri. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Conrad > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:44 AM > To: David Meyer > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the > IESGastowhether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP > > Hi, > > Sorry for being a bit late to this discussion (day job and other > realities intruding), but having had a small role in the > Dublin BOF, I > don't think it likely (in the extreme) there would be significant > benefit from having a second BOF. I'd like to second Dave's > seconding > of Brain's statement: > > On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:02 PM, David Meyer wrote: > > In any event, Brian really summed it up quite nicely: > > > > ... > > But I don't see the point in a second BOF; the idea > > that a BOF could resolve in a couple of hours the > > issues that the RRG has been discussing since early > > 2007 seems unlikely. > > I'd actually go a bit further and suggest that any attempt by any > group to resolve the issues the RRG has been discussing (or > any of the > various other discussions that occurred prior to RRG taking this on) > as a pre-requisite for creating a working group to standardize an > experimental protocol in this space would be equivalent to declaring > no protocol in this space will _ever_ be standardized. > > LISP is _an_ approach towards routing scalability. It is not > the only > one. Standardizing the experimental protocol would allow folks > interested in routing scalability to explore one or two axes of the > possible solution space. To be honest, I'm unclear as to why > there is > even a question as to whether a WG should be created... > > Regards, > -drc > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
