On Aug 13, 2009, at 16:56 , Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
If you want LISP on a desktop OS you need to update that OS, hence
at
the same time you can patch it to handle the 0 UDP checksum
consequently.
= I disagree, it is easy to implement LISP in user mode
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:41 , Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Aug 7, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
= in fact the IPv6 addresses don't need to be the same when xTRs are
attached to regular links with /64 prefixes. So IMHO most of this
discussion is insane:
- if we need to vary things
On Aug 11, 2009, at 14:23 , Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
If you want LISP on a desktop OS you need to update that OS, hence
at the same time you can patch it to handle the 0 UDP checksum
consequently. I do not see any real issue here.
So
On Aug 11, 2009, at 18:01 , Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Given that LISP ITRs work by intercepting packets that are not
addressed to them, a host implementation would need to be able to
intercept packets in the stack. That is going to need some
ability to modify kernel behavior.
We already
On Aug 11, 2009, at 20:05 , Dino Farinacci wrote:
On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Every host I'm aware of has a facility for setting up an interface
that routes some set of packets--including potentially the default
route--through a tunnel interface that then passes the
On Aug 11, 2009, at 20:28 , Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Dino,
On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Why couldn't LISP be implemented as a logical interface that
encapsulates or not based on the contents of the LISP Mapping
cache and the results of mapping lookups?
Because
On Aug 6, 2009, at 16:11 , Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Joel,
I think I understand both sides of the UDP checksum issue now...
We (or at least some of us) believe that it is a hard requirement to
support ECMP through legacy routing equipment. This equipment will
only identify flows
