[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] loc/id split and LISP
> 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
> smooth transition.
> 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
This is not completely true. Node ID does not require to modify ALL routers.
What it requires is a modification to the routers at locator domain (LD) borders.
The routers inside an LD (that do not route to other LDs) remain pure IP routers.
From that perspective it's similar to changing all ETRs and ITRs I would say.
> 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
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org 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