On Oct 21, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-10-22 07:01, Scott Brim wrote:
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.
There's no doubt Jon felt strongly about this. I'm not sure whether he
or Lixia was the originator of the following words in RFC 1958:
No it was not me.
It was Jon who felt strongly about avoiding circular dependency.
3.11 Circular dependencies must be avoided.
For example, routing must not depend on look-ups in the Domain
Name System (DNS), since the updating of DNS servers depends on
successful routing.
It might have been Lixia, because the point was explicit in her report
of the plenary discussion at IETF 33:
" In addition to the need
for autoconfiguration on tools at low levels, renumbering requires
changes to high-level protocols. It also puts further reliance on the
DNS system to keep up-to-date address binding. To avoid circular
dependency, DNS servers themselves will require special treatment,
such as provider-independent addresses, assured connectivity, issues
that are yet to be explored. "
1/ the above was the writing by whoever took the minutes of the plenary.
It was not me.
2/ my presentation was an interim report of the group. I recall that
6 of us hashed over the slides' wording a few times during that IETF
week prior to the plenary (didn't anyone notice some convoluted
wording? reflection of compromises:)
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
