[rrg] [lisp] Economic issues of long-path / stretched routing

[HeinerHummel at aol.com]

In einer eMail vom 26.01.2009 04:07:41 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
jzwiebel at cisco.com:

The  sub-optimal routing will only be for the LISP map-request.
The reply and  all encapsulated data traffic is between RLOCs
The ALT is merely there to  provide the correct mapping.





Prior arguing with long-path, stretch etc. I have another informative  
question (maybe I missed something too during the discussion): Why LISP 1.5 ?  Why 
not LISP 2 ? or directly:
Why doesn't the ITR intercept and enhance the DNS lookup as to also request  
the eRLOC address in addition to the dest IP address? It can also intercept 
the  respective response and store (EID, eRLOC).
 
I also ask this because wrt my TARA solution I would do the alike: The  
difference is only that the eRLOC information, to be retrieved from  DNS, are just 
the geographical coordinates of the ETR (as by experimental  RFC 1712).
So far I cannot see why there is a  (compelling ?) reason fro the ALT  
hierarchy at all.  
 
Thanks for answers to my question,
Heiner
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/attachments/20090126/c2c4f613/attachment.htm>