Re: [RRG] Tunnel fragmentation/reassembly for RRG map-and-encaps architectures

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> But the subtle difference also is that before the reply for such  
> request is received you have two choices:
>
> * drop packets /* not saying this is bad .. just static the facts  
> when comparing to today's FIB approach */
>
> or
>
> * forward it to practically non existent and managed by unknown  
> entity virtual GRE based LISP-ALT topology ...

Yes, we have mentioned this many times.

> I like APT proposal much more robust in that respect enforcing that  
> all ISPs have a default mapper and locally packets undergo just two  
> stage tunneling process if topologically required.

That means that every ISP from source-site to destination-site needs  
to run APT. We have decided for LISP for the best place to put xTRs  
are at the site, BECAUSE LESS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO CHANGE.

Dino


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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