Re: decentralization of Internet (was Re: Bruce Schneier's Proposal to dedicate November meeting to saving the Internet from the NSA

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



    > From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx>

    > LISP does nothing for decentralization. Traffic still flows
    > hierarchically

Umm, no. In fact, one of LISP's architectural scaling issues is that it's
non-hierarchical, so xTRs have neighbour fanouts that are much larger than
typical packet switches. In basic unicast mode, any xTR is always a direct
neighbour to any other xTR; no xTR (in basic unicast mode, at least) ever goes
_through_ another xTR to get to a third xTR. All LISP basic unicast paths
always include exactly two xTRs.

The actual detailed paths do mimic the underlying network, of course: if the
network is hierarchical, the paths will be hierarchical, but if the network
were flat, the paths would be flat. (Or is that what you meant?)

    > you add the mapping system which is naturally hierarchical and another
    > vulnerability.  

No more so than DNS; they are exactly parallel in their functional design.

	Noel




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]