Hi Masataka, Thanks very much for your response. Returning to the discussion of the LISP protocol, I received the following in an off-list message: > And no, none of the LISP advocates have ever claimed that LISP was the > only Locator Identifier Separation proposal or protocol. I think this claim is implicit in the opening words of the main LISP protocol draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-15 which have been present since version 08 of 2010-08-13: This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP), . . . I think the claim is also implicit in the title of this draft: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) which has remained unchanged since draft-farinacci-lisp-00 of 2007-01-17. I think the claim is also implicit in the absence of any references to other Locator-Identifier Separation protocols: GSE, HIP and now ILNP and lesser known RRG proposals: GLI-Split, Name-Based Sockets and RANGI. (See RRG msg06219.) All these Loc-ID Separation protocols involve new host protocols to implement the central principle of Loc-ID Separation: a new (ID) namespace for uniquely identifying hosts. This requires a new stack<->application interface and for all current applications to be substantially rewritten - though ILNP is claimed not to require either. The LISP protocol operates on totally different principles, which I consider a good thing - as I wrote in the first message in this thread. Does anyone have arguments as to why the LISP protocol is a Loc-ID Separation protocol like those just mentioned? Alternatively, does anyone argue why the definition of "Loc-ID Separation" should be extended to include the LISP protocol's approach? I believe that to extend its meaning to include this approach - and therefore the approaches of Ivip and IRON - would fudge an important distinction and render the term meaningless. - Robin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf