Subject: Re: [lisp] Economic issues of long-path / stretched routing

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:10:44 -0500 (EST)

Can we _PLEASE_ stop cross-posting things to three lists at once? Thanks.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:11:16 EST

In einer eMail vom 26.01.2009 04:07:23 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

I have a  concern about the economic aspects of stretch, specifically
related to  peering in routing systems where topology follows address
assignment more  closely than today's Internet.

This is one of the main differences with TARA: There a topological  view is 
constructed such that stretch becomes 1 and  not like here  where stretch is 
that what will turn out to be by chance.
 
Heiner

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:04:15 -0500 (EST)

> From: [email-masked]

    > Why LISP 1.5=20?  Why not LISP 2 ? or directly:
    > Why doesn't the ITR intercept and enhance the DNS lookup as to also request
    > the eRLOC address in addition to the dest IP address? It can also
    > intercept the respective response and store (EID, eRLOC).

I don't know what the thinking of other people working on LISP is, but I can
give you my thoughts on this point.

Simply put, I don't like designs which _invisibly, outside the host_ tie into
the DNS because it takes two separate subsystems (DNS resolution, and basic
packet forwarding), and tangles them together, which is bad engineering for a
number of reasons (makes it harder to make further changes, creates more
mutual dependencies, increases overall fragility/brittleness, etc).

Some NAT variants do this too, and I especially didn't like them either! :-)

        Noel