: this is false. We got the problem, we were asking for
more specific information in order to quantify the risk. We asked you help to
state the problem and explained to you where the solution should be
addressed. But you seem to be stuck on the operator vs. researcher
discussion, which IMHO is just pointless.
fully agree, our draft is already updated, and I know exactly the sentence that
has been
added in Sec 6.2.2 of the draft. We have not submitted the draft yet as we are
following the
rules of the WG. We will present the draft and present the modifications we
want to have and
ask the WG to accept them. Then we will add them in the draft.
because as one of them put it, he
is just a researcher. I am sure he and his colleagues are very
smart guys, but they clearly do not remember our 1990s pains.
That is the not an operator problem. It is understandable.
Others who have been around long enough simply dismiss this problem,
because they believe the unparalleled benefits of LISP for mobility
and multi-homing SOHO sites must greatly out-weigh the fact that,
well, if you are a content provider and you receive a DDoS, your site
will be down and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, other
than spec routers that have way, way more FIB than the number of
possible routes, again due to the bad caching scheme.
The above is what I think is the ego-invested problem, where certain
pretty smart, well-intentioned people have a lot of time, and
professional credibility, invested in making LISP work. I'm sure it
isn't pleasing for these guys to defend their project against my
argument that it may never be able to reach Internet-scale, and that
they have missed what I claim is a show-stopping problem with an easy
way to improve it through several years of development. Especially
since I am a guy who did not ever participate in the IETF before,
someone they don't know from a random guy on the street.
I am glad that this NANOG discussion has got some of these LISP folks
to pay more attention to my argument, and my suggested improvement (I
am not only bashing their project; I have positive input, too.)
Simply posting to their mailing list once and emailing a few draft
authors did not cause any movement at all. Evidently it does get
attention, though, to jump up and down on a different list. Go
figure!
If operators don't provide input and *perspective* to things like
LISP, we will end up with bad results.
True. That technical feedback is the most welcome.
Sure, please provide your feedback. What about deploying LISP in your test
network and provide us all the information you got from this deployment?
For you information, we are currently working with operators that are testing
LISP stuff so be sure that operators are listened!
Let me now ask a simple question: why are you so strongly against LISP?
You do not like it? Fine, other people do.
You do not believe in it and do not see any value? Fine, other people do.
You think that there are issues that cannot be solved? Fine, other people
believe those issues can be solved and are scratching their head to find
deployable solutions.
As I said before, your technical experience and feedback is the most welcome,
but let's try to focus only on the technical level.
Maybe you could write a draft with all the points you don't like in LISP and
why. This
document could be a starting point to improve LISP from an operational
viewpoint.
Tank you for providing us all the technical details.
Damien Saucez
thanks
Luigi Iannone
