Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS
Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be> Tue, 27 March 2012 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0960F21F8526 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XojteocSNdeg for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp6.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (smtp.sgsi.ucl.ac.be [130.104.5.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DD721F852C for <lisp@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbpobo.local (host-85-27-91-91.brutele.be [85.27.91.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: obonaventure@smtp6.sgsi.ucl.ac.be) by smtp6.sgsi.ucl.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71F8B1C5D05; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:08:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 smtp6.sgsi.ucl.ac.be 71F8B1C5D05
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=uclouvain.be; s=selucl; t=1332878912; bh=BJ6UklOBSLeWLiFEU+ydWQ9WZayPDvYkLyzZ5WcLxgo=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=unIluohhfpb3wrm4bkV2BRQM5Ymio/tk9Ar6X7pmLmlNfl+tgFafN5oCddBxvIX72 wwpjGIMarLDnKBi/NkD61app0XZXr2QmhJY0so5f37p80mRzAhzhs4T5JECDDm78DY KIkhMvvzQSiak7bas+Vq0IJ4ED7MKK7U3fPZ76Rc=
Message-ID: <4F721E40.8030806@uclouvain.be>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:08:32 +0200
From: Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: robert@raszuk.net
References: <4F721A51.4040901@raszuk.net>
In-Reply-To: <4F721A51.4040901@raszuk.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3-exp at smtp-6.sipr-dc.ucl.ac.be
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 71F8B1C5D05.A4EC0
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-From: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:08:41 -0000
Robert, > > During wg meeting today all presentations LISP-DDT, LISP-DDT-SEC and > LISP-DDT Database Transfer stated that this is very much like DNS. See also the original LISP-TREE paper for more details on the benefits of such a mapping system http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/lisp-tree-dns-hierarchy-support-lisp-mapping-system > > Said this I would like to ask why not use new instance of DNS with > DNSSEC completely independent on current name resolution DNS here ? > > It walks like a duck .. it quacks like a duck .. it must be a duck ! > > Defining new set of records and leveraging a lot of work which went into > (and still going) into DNS one could think would make a lot of sense > rather then reinventing the wheel. > > If not .. if DDT approach can not be serviced by DNS architecture I > think it would be very useful to document why. Also in the same time it > would be great to announce plans for open source DDT support ? One of the issues that I see in reusing the DNS is the LISP would have to support the (very old) history of DNS and the various protocol extensions. Bitlabel would seem the best way of encoding mappings, but bitlabels have been deprecated http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3363 which means that LISP could not simply reuse existing DNS servers. If there are modifications required to the DNS, then seems more realistic to avoid using an already overloaded protocol like the DNS. Although I was initially in favor of reusing the DNS, I changed my mind... Olivier -- INL, ICTEAM, UCLouvain, Belgium, http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Wiley, Glen
- [lisp] DDT vs DNS Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Olivier Bonaventure
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Damien Saucez
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Michael Hoefling
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Isidor Kouvelas
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Darrel Lewis
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Robert Raszuk
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Damien Saucez
- Re: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Darrel Lewis