[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[RRG] Re: Difference between translation in LISP vs. Six/One Router -- Re: [RRG] Six/One Router Design Clarifications



	Christian,

>> I implemented translation in LISP so I am not speculating. What you
>> are doing in Six/One is no different than LISP.
>
> No, the two are very different:  LISP translation requires *per-
> session state*, whereas Six/One Router translation is *stateless*.

	No, LISP translation does not require per-session
	state. I'm running one (www.translate.lis4.net), and it
	holds no per-session state. 

> As a consequence of being stateful, LISP translation shares many of
> the disadvantages of NATs, which Six/One Router avoids.

	LISP translation requires only local static configuration
	(if you want to call that state, but I don't think that's
	 what you're talking about).

	 Here is the config of www.translate.lisp4.net:

	  ip lisp translate inside 153.16.10.5 outside 128.223.157.65

	That's it. BTW, people have been pounding the web server
	on 153.16.10.5 and this is the state its holding:

titanium-dmm# sh ip lisp translate-cache 
LISP EID Translation Cache for VRF "default" - 1 entries
Inside: 153.16.10.5 outside: 128.223.157.65, ingress/egress count: 17936/183569 
titanium-dmm#  

	I'll talk a little about this at the GROW meeting, and 
	Darrel a transition talk at the EXPLISP BOF too.

	That said, translate (NAT) isn't the most scalable way to
	do this (it does have the advantage, shared with NAT, of
	being purely local). PTR is much more scalable.

	Dave

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature