[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Different approaches for different protocols
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:47 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Victor Grishchenko; Tony Li; Routing Research Group list
Subject: Re: [RRG] Re: [RAM] Different approaches for
LISP is in some sense a step backwards since it assumes that
sites won't be running multiple prefixes, so the only use
of multiple addresses will be link local v. ULA v. PI.
Sites *can* have multiple EID-prefixes in LISP, and they will occur
when small EID-prefix blocks are allocated because a site under-
estimated the number of systems it has to number.
Then, why not have LISP cut straight to the chase and
go straight to IPv6 in the EID space (leave the RLOC
space as IPv4)? To my understanding, management of
It certainly can. LISP is not taking any detours. I mentioned this at
the RRG, on our roadmap for implementation is to test IPv6 EIDs over
multiple prefixes is better handled in IPv6, and IMHO
we need to get to IPv6 in the not-too-distant future
We are not designing in serial but in parallel.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg