From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Time to revisit LISP? Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:00:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20161103.170018.314857405677363551.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20161103.163758.1592587767905993803.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: chris@logicalelegance.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: tom@herbertland.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:43586 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754148AbcKCVAU (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:00:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:57:59 -0700 > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:37 PM, David Miller wrote: >> Userspace resolution of paths in response to data path signalling >> simply does not scale and is fundamentally an extremely poor design >> choice. We're trying to move away from, rather than towards, these >> kinds of architectures. > > OVS is quite different I think. LISP is a specific resolution protocol > of identifier to locator as opposed to be some open ended mechanism to > resolve some arbitrary definition of flows like OVS. Also, I don't > think there's any specific requirement in LISP that prevents on from > implementing the mapping protocol in the kernel, it should just be a > simple UDP communication. > > Do you see anything in the protocol itself that would be a showstopper? I'd have to see the code and how it works. I can't review hypothetical implementations.