Subject: Re: [lisp] EID allocation / ALT base

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:10:53 EDT

In einer eMail vom 17.10.2010 14:27:12 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

>
> So why don't you just use DNS (LISP 2.0) instead of  the ALT router?  
> It would be much faster if you get all
>  the info by just one query!
>
> Heiner

Because when a  mapping database entry changes in a set of ETRs, they  
not only need  to update all the ITR/PITR caches but the ALT-caches as  
well since  DNS is a "intermediate caching system". That makes the  
mechanism  difficult and non-scalable.

Dino

Right. And all of this is needed because you and all of the IETF  experts 
(I like to exclude Dima) keep up sticking to an immensely miserable  
paradigm, which says "the world needs to know where I am reachable".
 
I did point out multiple times:
The postal network never maintains a knowledge database about  where anyone 
lives.
And because post office PO-x doesn't do it, it doesn't inform post  office  
PO-y for updating its database either.
The postal service delivers the letter to the indicated destination   bin. 
The postman throws the letter into
the indicated mailbox (and doesn't care whether thereafter the right person 
 will get to read it or not) or he returns it to the sender in case he 
cannot  find out the appropriate mailbox.
This system works and has no scalability problems at all.
    
Although LISP employs some "mediator" it still sticks to the mentioned  
paradigm instead of 
kicking away the hereby caused problems.
 
Heiner

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:42:45 -0700

> In einer eMail vom 17.10.2010 14:27:12 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit  
> schreibt [email-masked]:
> >
> Right. And all of this is needed because you and all of the IETF  
> experts (I like to exclude Dima) keep up sticking to an immensely  
> miserable paradigm, which says "the world needs to know where I am  
> reachable".
>
> The postal network never maintains a knowledge database about where  
> anyone lives.
> And because post office PO-x doesn't do it, it doesn't inform post  
> office  PO-y for updating its database either.
> The postal service delivers the letter to the indicated destination   
> bin. The postman throws the letter into
> the indicated mailbox (and doesn't care whether thereafter the right  
> person will get to read it or not) or he returns it to the sender in  
> case he cannot find out the appropriate mailbox.

The post office does not care about latency. LISP wants to provide for  
good packet performance, so all packets between ITR/PITR to ETR are of  
stretch 1.

Dino

> Although LISP employs some "mediator" it still sticks to the  
> mentioned paradigm instead of