you want to give ops feedback to the ietf, well ...
i suggest a loc/id session at the next nanog, 20-30 mins each for
LISP
ILNP
6296
where each is explained at an architectural level in some detail with
also a predeterimied list of questions such as "how does this address
loc/id separation,
On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> not to quibble but i thought 6296 was stateless.
AFAICT, the translators themselves are just rewriting addresses and not paying
attention to 'connections', which is all to the good. But then we get to this:
-
5.2. Recommendations for App
> I also view RFC6296 as a perpetuation of the clear violation of the
> end-to-end principle (i.e., ' . . . functions placed at low levels of
> a system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the
> cost of providing them at that low level . . .') embodied in the
> abomination of NAT
On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> - enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
Separation of locator/ID is a fundamental architectural principle which
transcends transport-specific (i.e., IPv4/IPv6) considerations. It allows for
node/application/services agility, and
On Jul 13, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> At this point, it might be interesting to do the following:
>
> - enumerate the operational problems solved by LISP
> - enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296
> - execute a cost/benefit analysis on both solutions
I'll
Original Message-
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:39 AM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the
> IETF)
>
> On Wed, Jul
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush 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
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09, Fred Baker wrote:
> I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed
> changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.
I guess I should clarify: I think ILNP is elegant. But the real
Internet evolves incrementally, and only as needed. Othe
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, "Scott Brim" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush wrote:
>> > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>> >
>> > 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
>>
On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> 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 h
On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, "Scott Brim" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush 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: EXPERIMENTA
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush 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
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
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I fear that at its worst and most successful, LISP ensures ipv4 is the
>> backbone transport media to the detriment of ipv6 and at its best, it
>> is a distraction for folks that need to be making ipv6 work, for real.
>
> i suspect that a numbe
>> i will not dispute this, not my point. but i have to respect dino and
>> the lisp fanboys (and, yes, they are all boys) for actually *doing*
>> something after 30 years of loc/id blah blah blah (as did hip). putting
>> their, well dino's, code where their mouths were and going way out on a
>>
On Jul 12, 2011 5:21 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>
> > W.R.T. to LISP, in defense of the IETF or the IRTF, i do not believe
> > "the IETF" has told the world that LISP is the best fit for the
> > Internet or solves any specific problem well.
> >
> > The IETF has never said the "Internet Architecture"
16 matches
Mail list logo
