RE: [RRG] On the Transitionability of LISP

["Lars Westberg (KI/EAB)" <lars.westberg@ericsson.com>]

I don't understand your statement. 

We have an engieering choice to select different protocols to solve
different probelms. The general statement that about development of
"christmas-tree" protocols applies as well to the routing system. 
 
I think we should consider to develop an modularity in the architecture.


Regards Lasse
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] 
> Sent: den 23 augusti 2007 09:44
> To: Lars Westberg (KI/EAB)
> Cc: Joel M. Halpern; RRG Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [RRG] On the Transitionability of LISP
> 
> Hi Lasse,
> 
> > Isn't the current BGP too complicated already ?
> > Shouldn't the target be to reduce it ?
> >
> > It sound simpler to have separated protocols rather that extend BGP.
> 
> The routing system has to be as complex as is needed to get 
> the job done, but not more complex than that. I'm not sure I 
> want to say anything about how well we are doing in this 
> respect today :-)
> 
> Anyway, what majority of proposals on the table do is to 
> introduce some modularity into the system. The routing in the 
> core of the Internet would be handled by a something 
> resembling the current BGP, but hopefully requiring smaller 
> amount of data and less features. The remaining part of the 
> routing problem would be handled as an additional task in 
> some subset of routers, e.g., on network edges. For those 
> routers complexity increases, but complexity and other pain 
> is reduced on the rest.
> 
> Jari
> 
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.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