The Path to LISP isn’t certain. RFC 6115.

In RFC 6115 – Recommendation for a Routing Architecture the following is in the introduction:

The group met at every IETF meeting from March 2007 to March 2010 and†discussed many proposals, both in person and via its mailing list.†Unfortunately, the group did not reach consensus. Rather than lose†the contributions and progress that had been made, the chairs (Lixia†Zhang and Tony Li) elected to collect the proposals of the group and†some of the debate concerning the proposals and make a recommendation†from those proposals. Thus, the recommendation reflects the opinions†of the chairs and not necessarily the consensus of the group.

From my reading of this RFC, the path to LISP is not going to be smooth. It appears that there are many options being discussed to scale the Internet backbone and LISP is just one of the possibilities. This RFC lists them all and attempts to summarise them. Three years of meeting and discussions with no progress doesn’t look good. As a result, I’m going to put my LISP reading on the backburner until the situations shows some signs of agreement.

It seems that Cisco is promoting LISP, and you might have believed from the material released that LISP is a done deal. But in fact, this shows the marketing power that Cisco has. Because none of the alternative options was discussed or even mentioned by Cisco, I wasn’t aware of this. Thanks to T. Li from Cisco who wrote this RFC and submitted it, it’s a valuable resource