Re: [RAM] New LISP draft available ...

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

>  what's the relationship between the variants of lisp? Is it  
> considered that an operator

They are implementation and deployment alternatives to experiment and  
learn about the design. We have already learned quite a bit so we can  
eliminate some of the variants before ever deploying them.

> would migrate through the 4 steps lisp 1 -> 1.5 -> 2 -> 3? Could  
> the variants co-exist?

At this point we think we can do a scalable mapping infrastructure  
with a LISP 1.5 variant that can go multiple ways. Or, a LISP 3  
variant that proposes one of (or a hybrid of) CONS, NERD, or APT.

> Or are they really 4 independent proposals? ('independent' meaning  
> you make a choice of which *one* to deploy)

The data-plane encapsulation is the same in all of them. The locator  
reachability mechanism is the same in all of them.

What differs is the way you retrieve EID-to-RLOC mappings. In LISP  
1.0 and 1.5, it is via data-triggered evens and in LISP 2 and LISP 3,  
it is purely in the control-plane.

> since lisp 1 uses routable EIDs, will it get the benefits hoped for  
> a locator/ID split approach (in terms of the design goals in draft- 
> irtf-rrg-design-goals)?

LISP 1 and LISP 2 will probably never get deployed.

> sorry if questions have already been covered

They have, but it's okay to repeat for clarity.

Dino

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