Hi Noel,
In responding (msg70266) to Doug Barton, you were quite prepared to
write 150 words of unsupported assertions to the list in an attempt to
discourage people from arguing that the LISP protocol and therefore WG
change its name - if only because it is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol.
Think what you like of me, but people whose contributions span decades -
such as Doug and Brian Carpenter - deserve respectful arguments.
I request that you - and whoever else thinks the LISP protocol is a
Loc-ID Separation protocol - respond to my message in the "Re: LISP is
not a Loc-ID Separation protocol" thread:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70239.html
There I argue that the LISP protocol (likewise Ivip and IRON) are not
Loc-ID Separation protocols because they do not create a new namespace
for Identifiers.
This is good because (msg70212) Loc-ID Separation protocols (such as
GSE, HIP and ILNP) have disadvantages including:
1 - They are IPv6-only.
2 - They require rewritten stacks and applications.
3 - They require hosts to send and receive more packets and do
more work (than the current arrangements) in order to respond to
a communication, when (as is often the case) it is important that
the reply packet must go to no other host than the one which has
the Identity specified as the source in the initiating packet.
4 - They can't support mobility with MNs behind NAT or handle Loc
changes fast enough for VoIP.
LISP has none of these problems, except (4) which could be fixed by
using TTR Mobility.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf