Re: ID/loc mapping distribution protocol (was Re: [RAM] Incremental Deployment of LISP

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>]

Dino, Marcello,

>>
>> Yes, understand. Lixia made the same suggestion using the DNS
>> protocol. That is use DNS the protocol as your query/reply protocol
>> but don't run it on UDP 53.
>>
>> But I have to beg the question, why people think this is the long
>> pole in the tent? That is designing a straight-forward protocol
>> shouldn't be hard or time consuming.
>
> imho, established well known protocols that have already been tested
> and are stable are better choice than new protocols, that need to
> mature. Of course, this only if we don't overload existent usages. For
> that reason, i think that if we can reuse the protocol but maybe not
> the actual current system, seems the best tradeoff (of course if the
> protocols do provide the required functionality, which is not at all
> clear yet)

At this time, I think its much more interesting to talk about the
properties of the mapping system and protocol than to make a
decision on reuse vs. new protocol. Push vs. pull, dynamics,
security properties, trust model, scalability requirements,
aggregated vs. flat, etc. that you talked about in the rest of
this thread are the important questions now. Of course, its
useful to think about what the real-world implementation of
the concepts could be, e.g., a new BGP instance, but lets
not get hang up on the protocol selection just yet.

Jari


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