Subject: [lisp] comments on architecture/intro drafts

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:43:45 +0100

Hi,

I will not be in Atlanta this time round, but will try to listen in and
comment via Jabber if there is a reason to.

My comments, unsurprisingly, relate to the mapping systems in these
drafts.   In the architecture draft, Noel rightly points out NERD's
characteristics, but states that a particular mapping system has been
"chosen".  One solution is better than two, quite frankly, from an
interoperability standpoint, and that work goes on with LISP-ALT, I
would suggest that the architecture properly delineate the mapping
function from packet format and processing.  There are different ways to
play the "State Game".  And this should also be clear in the intro,
where Noel talks about fate sharing.  One of the problems with NERD is
that it doesn't do fate sharing, but rather expects that reachibility**
testing is done between ETR & ITR through locator status bits.

My point here isn't so much to rehash NERD as it is to make clear in the
architecture the right layers so that The Next Mapping System that Yakov
writes can plug in easily ;-)

Eliot