FWIW... > On Feb 25, 2022, at 3:10 PM, Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is LISP really part of the Internet Architecture ? I thought (unfortunately) >> not. E.g.: i don't think i can become an Internet transit ISP without >> participating >> in the "native" BGP routing. "Hey, i don't want these gigantic BGP Internet >> routing tables, and my customers don't need it. I just want do do LISP". > > LISP isn't really tunnels (if you look really really closely)
Agreed; it’s what I presented to Russ White, et al., in 2006 as a “recursive router”. If done correctly (IMO), it makes a network subnet look like a router to the rest of the network. > but to quote Noel "Tunnels were never first class citizens of the Internet > architecture". Take it for what's it worth. I disagree; a tunnel (done correctly) is isomorphic to a link. There’s no difference between tunnels and what we already rely on as “L2”. The flaw is the OSI model assuming layer levels are absolute (they’re relative) from all viewpoints (again, relative). There’s a strong equivalence between a link, a tunnel, and a router (which, in essence, emulates shared link). And, interestingly, forwarding can also be described as recursive tunneling. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
