Certainly - though the times are gone when routing and addressing where
identical, i.e. when my means of the next dialled digit the next-hop trunk was
selected electro-mechanically.
Just compare TARA-now (
http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/topology-aggregating-routing-architecture-tara/77501
) and the long expired draft-hummel-tara-00:
I once had the same idea like Fuller to disseminate a prefix of length zero,
so that a TARA-router closest to the ingress could attract traffic, then
prepend a TARA-header as to do TARA-forwarding to some TARA-ETR. But it was
necessary to sacrifice this nice idea. Instead it is more important to involve
the user side and
have FQDN mapped to {IPv4; TARA-locator} by one single action. The gain: tons
and tons of available IPv4-addresses.
All has to be taken into consideration. Whereas the LISP-supporters say "hey,
addressing is not our problem; we just deal with the scalability issue".
Well, if you want to help IPv4, both issues must be of concern, and the address
depletion is even the more serious issue, isn't it?
Heiner
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Tony Li <t...@pi-coral.com>
An: heinerhummel <heinerhum...@aol.com>
Cc: lars <l...@netapp.com>; rrg <rrg@irtf.org>
Verschickt: So, 17 Nov 2013 7:12 pm
Betreff: Re: [rrg] Rebooting the RRG
On Nov 17, 2013, at 8:35 AM, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote:
> When RRG was launched the driving force was the so-called scalability problem.
> Currently the biggest issue is the expiration of available IPv4 addresses.
> That however would be a non-issue if the FQDN were mapped to {IPv4 addr of
destination user; locator of ETR} in a single strike based on DNS while taking
care that IPv4 addresses of the same locator were mutually unique.
> LISP-DDT neither does so now, nor would be able to do so ever. Hence IPv4's
lifetime is up to NAT as long as solutions like LISPv2.0 or my TARA are
discarded/ignored. There are much more knowledgable folks around who know the
disadvantages of the NAT sinfall better than myself. I can only add one
disadvantage: With a network layer based on TCP (NAT) you can never enable
Multicast with a roaming sender.
>
> I think this IPv4-depletion issue is the most urgent problem at all.
Is that a routing problem?
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
