On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, "Scott Brim" <scott.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at > > > > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker. > > June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL) > > > > which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space > > > > randy > > No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved, > even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global > routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does). > > Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where > things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead. > When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey > have been worth it? LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so > much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent > address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need > already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it. You > can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention". I've invited > people to promote it and nobody stepped up. >
"Difficult" depends on your time horizon. Ipv6 is/was difficult. Sctp is difficult, but I remain bullish on its value. ILNP may be more difficult, but i believe it is strategically correct. We can disagree on merits of competing RESEARCH topics. I am just providing "ops feedback ", to bring this thread full circle. Lastly, we must make sure that LISP does not become the next 6to4 where good intentions for RESEARCH become a quantifiable network nightmare. Cb
