Re: [RAM] Incremental Deployment of LISP

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

> I think this heavily depends on what scenario you are considering
>
> in LISP 1 doesn't matter, since both identifiers and locators are  
> routable
> So, if you do have an alternative locator for the identifier, then  
> tunnel, else, forward directly
>
> similar in LISP 1.5
>
> In LISP 2 and 3 the issue you are considering needs to be  
> considered imho
>
> probably it will induce additional latency, since you probably want  
> to check if the dest address is an identifier.
>
> in LISP 3 it depends wheter you are using the push or pull model
>
> if you have all the identifier to locator database available, then  
> you can check on it to verify if the destination is a identifier  
> and which are the locators
>
> if you don't have it, well, then you need to make a query and find  
> out, which will take additional delay

You are right non Marcelo. I think taking the high-road by doing a  
LISP-push model gives you the best of all worlds. We still can  
incrementally deploy tunneling and by augmenting LISP-CAs and LISP- 
peering routers we can get EID-to-RLOC integrity, DOS-protection, and  
non-routable IDs.

Mark Handley and I are working on a proposal. Give us some time to  
get it written down.

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram