Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

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