Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov at juniper.net>]

Dino,

> All variants of LISP assume:
> 
> o The mapping function does not convey locator reachability status.
>
> o The EID-to-RLOC entries are relatively static, that is they change  
>   only at subscription time events.
> 
> > My guess is that the architectural commonality between LISP 1/1.5/ 
> > etc and the eventual deployed stuff is likely to be:
> >
> > - Hosts and local routers don't need to be modified
> 
> ISP routers that don't use LISP for TE won't have to be modified either.

If an ISP does not use LISP for TE, then according to the above
none of the ISP's routers have to be modified, which means that such
an ISP does not need to deploy any ITRs/ETRs. And if neither hosts nor 
local routers have to be modified, then none of the local routers
need to be ITRs/ETRs. So, where would the ITRs/ETRs be deployed ?
  
Yakov.

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