On 10/21/08 1:44 PM, Dino Farinacci allegedly wrote: >> Map-n-encap would upset Jon, as written GSE depends heavily on DNS, GSE >> conversion would take longer to solve routing scaling than we have time >> for, and nobody wants to make NAT the centerpiece of the new >> architecture. > > Scott, do you think Jon would be upset with LISP, as the way it is > currently defined? > > Dino >
The question is really about mapping. I wasn't in the room at that time (that I remember) but I think DNS was a lot more fragile than it is now, and more fragile than ALT. Personally I think we're okay as long as we can deploy the robustness the system is designed for. If Jon's problem was having IP forwarding depend on something fragile -- like the-then-DNS -- then I don't think there's a problem. If he objected in principle to depending on anything other than hop-by-hop routing then I guess he would still have a problem ... but then again he never liked route filtering either. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
