Subject: RE: [RAM] Architectural comments on draft-farinacci-lisp-00

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:17:59 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 4:40 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [RAM] Architectural comments on draft-farinacci-lisp-00
> 
<trimming>
> 
> So here's my question: if I have a "locator" which globally, uniquely
> identifies something, but which includes topological location 
> information
> in the name for only a limited scope, what happens in the 
> limiting case,
> where that scope is reduced to the the named entity itself? 
> In what sense
> is that "locator" a locator any more?
> 

This is an interesting line of thinking I'd like to push further w.r.t.
LISP.  What if one did not stop at the first hop router with LISP but
instead pushed it all the way into the host?  In such a scenario, what
aspects of LISP would be objectionable for whatever reason (locator
binding security, properties of the resolution system, perhaps)?  If
such design points are objectionable in the host context, what is
different then when implementing them instead in the tunnel routers?
Should LISP worry about these objections?  Or maybe the question is
should LISP worry about them now as opposed to later?

This question may be restating Pekka's observation in the ILSE draft
that, aside from deployment concerns, where or how the split is
implemented is perhaps not as important as other properties that people
have been concerned about regarding the ID/locator split.

Maybe some will answer that there are no such objectionable design
points for host-based LISP and we are already doing something very
similar (mobile IP).  Is LISP essentially a site-multihoming variant of
NEMO with a different control/resolution plane?

Tom

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