> 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.
Right. >> 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”. Yeah it depends how the tunnel is implemented. It can be a dynamic encapsulation like to do for an IP packet sent on Ethernet or it can be a logical p2p or p2mp interface that has addressing and not only included in routing protocols but you run protocols and ACLs/DSCP over them. LISP is the former in the various implementations I have been associated with. > 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. Right. That is, it is architecturally broken to run network layer functionality at the application level. We have IaaS, PaaS, and I named my open-source LISP implementation as RaaS (or Routing as an Application). Dino _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
