Dino,
> of "magic" all the problems that motivated development of CEF would > disappear in the context of ITR/ETR caches ? And if they would notYou don't do packet-time population of the cache like CEF did. In LISP, you do packet-time Map-Requests, but the Replies populate the cache at control-plane time. That is the difference, subtle but important.
But the subtle difference also is that before the reply for such request is received you have two choices:
* drop packets /* not saying this is bad .. just static the facts when comparing to today's FIB approach */
or* forward it to practically non existent and managed by unknown entity virtual GRE based LISP-ALT topology ...
I like APT proposal much more robust in that respect enforcing that all ISPs have a default mapper and locally packets undergo just two stage tunneling process if topologically required.
Cheers, R. -- 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