[rrg] NANOG44 session on current IP address challenges

[Scott Brim]

On 10/21/08 1:44 PM, Dino Farinacci allegedly wrote:
>> Map-n-encap would upset Jon, as written GSE depends heavily on DNS, GSE
>> conversion would take longer to solve routing scaling than we have time
>> for, and nobody wants to make NAT the centerpiece of the new
>> architecture.
> 
> Scott, do you think Jon would be upset with LISP, as the way it is
> currently defined?
> 
> Dino
> 

The question is really about mapping.  I wasn't in the room at that time
(that I remember) but I think DNS was a lot more fragile than it is now,
and more fragile than ALT.  Personally I think we're okay as long as we
can deploy the robustness the system is designed for.  If Jon's problem
was having IP forwarding depend on something fragile -- like
the-then-DNS -- then I don't think there's a problem.  If he objected in
principle to depending on anything other than hop-by-hop routing then I
guess he would still have a problem ... but then again he never liked
route filtering either.