RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin at boeing.com>]

Hi Robin,

Thanks for looking. Just as clarification, IPvLX does not
require changes to host software; it requires changes to
router software. If the host and router occur on the same
physical platform (which is *not* a requirement), then it
may appear that host software changes are needed - but,
it is really only router software that is being changed.

About similarities to other proposals, I think if there
were to be a LISP 2 it would probably look a lot like
IPvLX. But, there is no reason IPvLX can't be extended
to support other mapping mechanisms than just DNS, too.

About IPv6, IPvLX accomplishes the ID/loc split by using
IPv6 addresses as EIDs and IPv4 addresses as RLOCs.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin at boeing.com  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Whittle [mailto:rw at firstpr.com.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:30 AM
> To: ram at iab.org
> Cc: Eliot Lear; Templin, Fred L
> Subject: Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared
> 
> Hi Fred and Eliot,
> 
> Fred, I didn't try to compare IPvLX (http://ipvlx.com) with the
> others because I think it is very different from these.  Firstly,
> I understand that IPvLX requires changes in host software.
> Secondly, it involves IPv6, although as best I understand it I
> think you want it to help with IPv4 communications, and doesn't
> actually require IPv6 connectivity.  Thirdly, I don't understand
> it anywhere near enough to evaluate it.
> 
> The first point is the most important to me.  As long as a
> proposal to solve what I call the "crisis in routing and
> addressing" involves changes to host software, I am convinced it
> will never actually be deployed.  I am am wrong about any of this,
> please correct me.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Eliot, for your appreciative response and for clarifying
> some points about the state maintained in a LISP-NERD ITR.  I
> understand that "ifstate" and the timer will exist for every RLOC
> address the ITR has recently been attempting to send packets to,
> and that the database could have one or more likely many EID
> addresses and prefixes mapped to this RLOC address.
> 
> I re-read the proposals and got enough of the material in my brain
> at once to be able to compare them.  There may well be
> inadequacies in what I wrote.  I have a version of the comparison at:
> 
>   http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/comp/
> 
> with a note about how the proposals will no-doubt change rapidly.
>  I won't try to keep this comparison up-to-date forever, but if
> there are any things I should change I will do so.  I point to
> this mailing list discussion from that page.
> 
>   - Robin
> 
> 

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