[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] loc/id split and LISP
* > Of course, LISP could introduce another namespace in order to be a
* > identifier/locator split solution ... but that would be too expensive
* > to be deployed.
*Why do you feel that way? Is it because it would increase the cost of
*deployment if we couldn't re-use IPv4 routers inside the LISP 'core', if we
*designed a new namespace?
A new architecture with a new namespace could mean that we have to change
most of components of current Internet. It is a revolution rather than a
For example, HIP, it requests ALL end devices change their stacks, ALL
applications to be modified in order to support HIT, and to deploy a global
mapping real-time system in order to translate the identifier (HIT) into
locator (IP). I am sure that I do not mention all the costs. Personally, I
am pessimistic the abovementioned can happen in a short future. HIP does not
improve the network routing however. HIP++, Node ID even requests more in
order to optimize network routing. It consequently requests the modification
on all the routers besides all the abovementioned requirements. Is it
On the other side, I am not saying HIP or Node ID is a bad solution. They
are better solutions for the issues we meet now, just too expensive. Maybe,
we could afford them as a long-term revolution.
Dr. Sheng JIANG
IP Research Department, Networking Research Department, Network Product
Line, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg