Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP & GSE
Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> Tue, 01 November 2011 10:20 UTC
Return-Path: <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA52321F8E04 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H+2sbRYu7NcY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gair.firstpr.com.au (gair.firstpr.com.au [150.101.162.123]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F7721F8DD6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.6] (wira.firstpr.com.au [10.0.0.6]) by gair.firstpr.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C3D1759CC; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 21:19:21 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <4EAFC7A9.7050506@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:19:21 +1100
From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP & GSE
References: <20111031220159.8741D18C0A5@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20111031220159.8741D18C0A5@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:20:51 -0000
Hi Noel, In responding (msg70266) to Doug Barton, you were quite prepared to write 150 words of unsupported assertions to the list in an attempt to discourage people from arguing that the LISP protocol and therefore WG change its name - if only because it is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol. Think what you like of me, but people whose contributions span decades - such as Doug and Brian Carpenter - deserve respectful arguments. I request that you - and whoever else thinks the LISP protocol is a Loc-ID Separation protocol - respond to my message in the "Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol" thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70239.html There I argue that the LISP protocol (likewise Ivip and IRON) are not Loc-ID Separation protocols because they do not create a new namespace for Identifiers. This is good because (msg70212) Loc-ID Separation protocols (such as GSE, HIP and ILNP) have disadvantages including: 1 - They are IPv6-only. 2 - They require rewritten stacks and applications. 3 - They require hosts to send and receive more packets and do more work (than the current arrangements) in order to respond to a communication, when (as is often the case) it is important that the reply packet must go to no other host than the one which has the Identity specified as the source in the initiating packet. 4 - They can't support mobility with MNs behind NAT or handle Loc changes fast enough for VoIP. LISP has none of these problems, except (4) which could be fixed by using TTR Mobility. - Robin
- Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP & GSE Noel Chiappa
- Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP & GSE Robin Whittle
- Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP & GSE RJ Atkinson