netdev - Time to revisit LISP?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALx6S35cT6gn4W6iiaL5sAgTm=jJPZpyVP3pyGXfbyHHsKaciQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:22:52 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     chris@...icalelegance.com,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Time to revisit LISP?

Hi Chris,

Looking at netdev archives I see that Dave's response to the LISP
patches from June 2014 was:

"Sorry, I'm not too thrilled about LISP and this patch in particular,
from several different angles.  And therefore I'm going to mark this
patch deferred and not apply it at this time."

It seems to the me that he didn't close the door on ever accepting
LISP into the kernel! I am wondering if it is time to take another
look at this, I am starting to see that there is some existing
deployment of LISP.

AFAICT, most of the concerns Dave had were along the lines of the
infrastructure not the protocol. We might be able to address these
now.

For instance, one of the his questions is:

"What is to keep one from having to service a full Map-Request -->
Map-Reply cycle for every packet received?"

This can be solved by judicious rate limiting, for instance the
infrastructure I implemented to rate limit ILA resolver request could
be applied here.

Thanks,
Tom