"Dino" == Dino Farinacci <d...@cisco.com> writes:
Dino> We call "LISP tunnels" as "dynamic encapsulating tunnels"
Dino> where an implementation must not implement the tunnel as a
Dino> logical interface. The implementation cannot scale if it
Dino> does this. You get the level of indirection by doing another
Dino> lookup in another data structure called the "map-cache".
I see no text in draft-ietf-lisp-03 that says that lisp tunnels cannot
be logical interfaces and would object strongly to including such an
implementation detail in the spec. I see text that says that they
must not be statically configured.
Because it is an implementation issue.
If an ITR decided to encapsulate all its packets to a recursive
encapsulator, it could build an implementation with a single logical
interface.
I also don't see the scaling argument you're making. Perhaps you're
trying to say is that you want all traffic considered for lisp
encapsulation and do not want to flood the mapping database into the
local routing table. That's probably true, but seems quite unrelated
to whether something is a logical interface at least with several host
routing implementations I'm familiar with.
This is all implementation dependent. You can talk to dozens if not
100s of IOS engineers about this next time you are in an IETF hallway.
They will talk your ear off. ;-)
Dino
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
