[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

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 in the case of the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, besides providing a way to solve mobility and to do on-demand dynamic provisioning/on-the-fly-reprovisioning of communications relationships, finally starts us down the long-overdue evolution towards an eventual fully out-of-band control plane.

Controlling routing-table excursion in the IPv4/IPv6 Internet was/is the tactical problem that LISP was/is intended to address (pardon the pun), but the above long-term strategic benefits are its real value, IMHO.

> - enumerate the subset of those problems also solved by RFC 6296

In light of the above, I view LISP and RFC6296 as orthogonal to one another.  

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/PAT into IPv6, and the consequent instantiation of yet more unnecessary and harmful state into networks which are already deep in the throes of autogenic thromboembolism.

Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

		The basis of optimism is sheer terror.

			  -- Oscar Wilde