Just to clarify, the LISP work is specifically aimed at experimental
status. This is the kind of space where multiple experiments seems
quite sensible.
Yours,
Joel
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-04-20 12:50, Tony Li wrote:
Renumbering [I-D.carpenter-renum-needs-work]
I'm flattered to be cited, but I hope this doesn't convey the
impression that the draft (now in the RFC queue) offers a
solution. It's more of the nature of a problem statement and
gap analysis. I think it would be helpful to state that, to
avoid any false expectations.
...
We recommended ILNP because we find it to be a clean solution for the
architecture. It separates location from identity in a clear,
straightforward way that is consistent with the remainder of the
Internet architecture and makes both first-class citizens. Unlike
the many map-and-encap proposals, there are no complications due to
tunneling, indirection, or semantics that shift over the lifetime of
a packets delivery.
Two observations:
1. Maybe add some words to point out that it isn't a done deal. ILNP
hasn't had the kind of across the board review in the IETF that seems
essential, to look for corner cases and unexpected consequences. There's
work to be done.
2. The IETF has already standardised a different approach (shim6) and is
in the process of specifying LISP. While this may be the IETF's problem
to sort out, perhaps you should also point out that we'd end up with
a menagerie of three species by adding ILNP.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
