> Making the spec PS fits the envisaged evolution of the LISP "experiment". > The downside here might be that this is also recognition that LISP does > not fix the _global_ routing scalability issue (presuming of course that > the issue remains) in any short term exercise due to the way operators > actually choose to run BGP. Is the global internet ready and willing to > separate the locator and identifier in operations yet? I don't think so.
I think it does fix the problem or at least helps the problem Terry. The real question, as you state, is the Internet ready to use this solution. > I would certainly say that it makes intra-AS routing systems leaner, as a > very positive outcome. And netflow caches smaller and EIDs in the underlay possibly private and more secure. All good things for USERS. > I think the scrutiny came through multiple different lenses. Not just > global routing scalability. I also doubt that the scrutiny will diminish. > But I do like the idea of calling it what it really is. It's an overlay > with attractive properties. Agree. > Take care to not leave the door _wide_ open. I look at LISP as a very > (very!) well reviewed specification that currently is not overweight with > unused/unnecessary features. I have a concern that having all and sundry > adding in their pet feature may cause that attribute to suffer. Perhaps it > would be sane to pick the 4-5 priority items and work on those, nail them > and move forward that way. Agree 100%, but Prague will be used to brainstorm. Once we do that, we need to DECIDE on those priority items. Hope you will be there to contribute. You have a lot of experience with LISP deployemnt and can bring a lot of value to the discussion. Thanks, Dino > > Cheers > Terry > > > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
