Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments about the LISP header

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:17:58 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>

    > Conversely, this seems to introduce two design problems simultaneously.
    > 1) including a feature we don't know the use for.

Well, actually, from an architectural point of view, I quite like it.

The _protocol_ mechanism is very simple and cheap. The algorithms to use it
inside the nodes can change over time, and in a trivially interoperable way.
It reminds me perfectly of TCP retransmission, where we were able to first
experiment with, and then incrementally deploy VJCC, with zero hassle -
because it had exactly these properties.

Ensuring mutual reachabilty is a Big Deal in routing protocols. The problem is
going to factorially worse for us, because our communicating boxes are not
going to be on the same physical network, but on either side of the
internetwork.

And if you come at the problem from the fundaments, having some simple, cheap
and flexible mechanism that piggybacks on existing traffic seems like a really
good tool to have in your toolkit...

	Noel

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 13:49:02 -0400

>>>>> "Noel" == Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> Conversely, this
    >> seems to introduce two design problems simultaneously.  1)
    >> including a feature we don't know the use for.

    Noel> Well, actually, from an architectural point of view, I quite
    Noel> like it.

    Noel> The _protocol_ mechanism is very simple and cheap. The
    Noel> algorithms to use it inside the nodes can change over time,
    Noel> and in a trivially interoperable way.  It reminds me
    Noel> perfectly of TCP retransmission, where we were able to first
    Noel> experiment with, and then incrementally deploy VJCC, with
    Noel> zero hassle - because it had exactly these properties.
So, from this discussion it sounds like you believe that the protocol
bits are simple enough that we can look at them today?  If I am
understanding you correctly, can I get you to write up specific text
proposing such a mechanism or find someone else to do so?  Once we
have have a specific proposal, we'll be in a better position to
evaluate it.