> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org Wed Dec 8 15:36:44 > 2010 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:34:47 -0600 > From: Jack Bates <jba...@brightok.net> > To: David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> > Subject: Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > > On 12/8/2010 3:12 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > Cameron, > > > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > >> I believe a lot of folks think the routing paths should be tightly > >> coupled with the physical topology. > > > > The downside, of course, being that if you change your location > > within the physical topology, you have to renumber. Enterprises have > > already voted with their feet that this isn't acceptable with IPv4 > > and they'll no doubt do the same with IPv6. > > > >> In a mature IPv6 world, that is sane, i am not sure what the real > >> value of LISP is. > > > > Sanity is in the eye of the beholder. The advantage a LISP(-like) > > scheme provides is a way of separating location from identity, > > allowing for arbitrary topology change (and complexity in the form of > > multi-homing) without affecting the identities of the systems on the > > network. Changing providers or multi-homing would thus not result in > > a renumbering event or pushing yet another prefix into the DFZ. > > > > I think the issue, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that LISP does not > address issues of traffic engineering? A lot of the additional routes in > DFZ are there specifically to handle traffic engineering.
The primary thing that a LISP-like approach accomplishes is the 'de-coupling" of infrastructure and leaf networks. You can mess with either one, w/o having any effect on the other.