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 7:50 AM, "Seth Mos" wrote:
>
> Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
> > > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>
> The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
> everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections
here.
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
Op 13-7-2011 16:09, Randy Bush schreef:
> > btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
The free Open Source FreeBSD based pfSense firewall supports this. Not
everyone can get BGP, specifically calling out residential connections here.
As a 1:1 NAT mechanism it works pretty well, I can re
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"
> 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" is going to LISP,
> and it likely will not / cannot. My
19 matches
Mail list logo
