On Jul 13, 2011 7:39 AM, "Scott Brim" <scott.brim@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush <randy@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