|
In einer eMail vom 28.09.2007 04:35:09 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
rw@firstpr.com.au:
Robin,
let me start with saying NO. At least all DFZ routers would have to
comply with.
I do not mind that LISP is going to be developed, but it takes as well an
extra load e.g. CONS.
According to my solution there wouldn't be a need for CONS. To some extent,
this reminds me of MADCAP, a protocol to provide worldwide uniqueness for
assigned multicast addresses. As soon as it was developed,
single-source-multicast obsoleted that protocol.
Also, it may take years to get another chance for a funding application. So
it fits me well that LISP work is continued meanwhile.
Yes, I am focused on a long-term solution, which wouldn't have any
scalability problems at all, even if the internet were 100 000 times bigger.
I always was excited about PNNI's hierarchical network, but these days I
learned that the real credits belong to Noel and his Nimrod. However it has to
be turned over and put on its feet. Concrete: It takes a different understanding
of what is a hierarchical node resp. hierarchical link.
By watching the RRG-discussion I also see the feud between the different
concepts (between LISP and lvip as well). This is quite natural because
everybody likes his own ideas best. I am convinced that at some point in time in
the future you will like my concept, because it will provide you
a) an interesting protocol development which may last a few years
b) and thereafter a huge land of opportunities wrt user and TE
applications for decades
Heiner
|