Hi Noel, In responding (msg70266) to Doug Barton, you were quite prepared to write 150 words of unsupported assertions to the list in an attempt to discourage people from arguing that the LISP protocol and therefore WG change its name - if only because it is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol. Think what you like of me, but people whose contributions span decades - such as Doug and Brian Carpenter - deserve respectful arguments. I request that you - and whoever else thinks the LISP protocol is a Loc-ID Separation protocol - respond to my message in the "Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol" thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70239.html There I argue that the LISP protocol (likewise Ivip and IRON) are not Loc-ID Separation protocols because they do not create a new namespace for Identifiers. This is good because (msg70212) Loc-ID Separation protocols (such as GSE, HIP and ILNP) have disadvantages including: 1 - They are IPv6-only. 2 - They require rewritten stacks and applications. 3 - They require hosts to send and receive more packets and do more work (than the current arrangements) in order to respond to a communication, when (as is often the case) it is important that the reply packet must go to no other host than the one which has the Identity specified as the source in the initiating packet. 4 - They can't support mobility with MNs behind NAT or handle Loc changes fast enough for VoIP. LISP has none of these problems, except (4) which could be fixed by using TTR Mobility. - Robin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf