On Sep 6, 2013 10:06 PM, "Noel Chiappa"
<jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
> From: Scott Brim <scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> LISP does nothing for decentralization. Traffic still flows
> hierarchically
Umm, no. In fact, one of LISP's architectural scaling issues is that it's
non-hierarchical, so xTRs have neighbour fanouts that are much larger than
typical packet switches. In basic unicast mode, any xTR is always a direct
neighbour to any other xTR; no xTR (in basic unicast mode, at least) ever
goes
_through_ another xTR to get to a third xTR. All LISP basic unicast paths
always include exactly two xTRs.
The actual detailed paths do mimic the underlying network, of course: if
the
network is hierarchical, the paths will be hierarchical, but if the
network
were flat, the paths would be flat. (Or is that what you meant?)
Yup. The encapsulation is not much of an obstacle to packet examination.
> you add the mapping system which is naturally hierarchical and
another
> vulnerability.
No more so than DNS; they are exactly parallel in their functional design.
Yes but DNS vulnerabilities have been covered elsewhere.
Cheers... Scott