On Sep 6, 2013 10:06 PM, "Noel Chiappa" <j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: > > > From: Scott Brim <scott.b...@gmail.com> > > > LISP does nothing for decentralization. Traffic still flows > > hierarchically > > Umm, no. In fact, one of LISP's architectural scaling issues is that it's > non-hierarchical, so xTRs have neighbour fanouts that are much larger than > typical packet switches. In basic unicast mode, any xTR is always a direct > neighbour to any other xTR; no xTR (in basic unicast mode, at least) ever goes > _through_ another xTR to get to a third xTR. All LISP basic unicast paths > always include exactly two xTRs. > The actual detailed paths do mimic the underlying network, of course: if the > network is hierarchical, the paths will be hierarchical, but if the network > were flat, the paths would be flat. (Or is that what you meant?)
Yup. The encapsulation is not much of an obstacle to packet examination. > > you add the mapping system which is naturally hierarchical and another > > vulnerability. > > No more so than DNS; they are exactly parallel in their functional design. Yes but DNS vulnerabilities have been covered elsewhere. Cheers... Scott
