Subject: Re: [RAM] Crisper Terminology

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:45:55 EDT

In einer eMail vom 09.06.2007 18:19:11 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

So far,  the split appears to be "assumed," and the harder points about
this split  have been not discussed at all. The discussion has centered
around the  mapping protocols, with mobility being taken off the table as
being a  problem to solve.

IMHO, there are two dangerous decisions here, one not  to discuss the
implications of a loc/id split, and the other to take  mobility off the
table as a problem to be  solved.

The split appears to be "assumed". My similar impression: the  split appears 
to be a goal by itself.
 
...mobility being taken off the table : 
My hope is that such services increase the pressure for accepting  new 
solutions. Not of the kind "wash me but don't make me wet". Not of the  kind where 
backward-compatibility is the first thing to be considered
(in the end even the most revolutionary approach will need   operational 
mechanisms,too, that can be re-used).
 
There are a lot of "identifier"-issues ( I addressed some of them lately).  
And there are still the routing issues.
By going for a solution that eliminates the routing problems addressed by  
the IAB raw report, mobility services would have a new and brighter base  for 
sure.
 
Heiner

   
_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:09:40 -0700

I can only speak for the RRG: the mobility implications of the Loc/ID  
split are still very much on the table.

Tony

On Jun 9, 2007, at 1:45 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> In einer eMail vom 09.06.2007 18:19:11 Westeuropäische Normalzeit  
> schreibt [email-masked]:
> The split appears to be "assumed". My similar impression: the split  
> appears to be a goal by itself.
>
> My hope is that such services increase the pressure for accepting   
> new solutions. Not of the kind "wash me but don't make me wet". Not  
> of the kind where backward-compatibility is the first thing to be  
> considered
> (in the end even the most revolutionary approach will need   
> operational mechanisms,too, that can be re-used).
>
> There are a lot of "identifier"-issues ( I addressed some of them  
> lately). And there are still the routing issues.
> By going for a solution that eliminates the routing problems  
> addressed by the IAB raw report, mobility services would have a new  
> and brighter base for sure.
>
> Heiner
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:10:16 -0700

> I can only speak for the RRG: the mobility implications of the Loc/ 
> ID split are still very much on the table.

And ditto for the LISP designers.

Dino

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:23:29 -0400

> And ditto for the LISP designers.

All the discussions I've seen say that "fast mobility" is off the table
for LISP. Has this changed?

:-)

Russ

- --
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:16:13 -0700

> for LISP. Has this changed?

Nothing has changed. We have an idea how to do it at the expense of / 
32s (for IPv4) locator entries in the ETR (and only the ETR). But we  
want to focus on the more pressing issues first.

With enough trust anything can fly. But using LISP for fast mobility  
can work at the data-plane (with the proviso above) but definitely  
don't want it as part of the mapping service.

Dino