I realize that this is reaching way back, but you may want to have a look at the latest version of IRON:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-templin-ironbis-12.txt IRON manages the internal routing systems for large virtual service provider networks. It deals with deaggregation and churn due to mobility internally, and does not expose the deaggregation and churn to the interdomain routing system. IRON is therefore an intradomain routing overlay network system, and can be used in conjunction with any interdomain routing system - including BGP and LISP. Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Felter [mailto:w...@felter.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:51 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: IRON vs. BGP (was Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?) > > On 8/6/12 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > The goal here was to make this as simple and cost-effective as the NAT- > based > > IPv4 solution currently in common use. There's no reason it can't be > exactly that. > > > > It does provide advantages over the NAT-based solution (sessions can > survive > > failover). > > What do people think about Fred Templin's IRON multihomed tunneling > approach (or LISP, I guess it can do it)? IRON should give you > multihoming with stable IPv4 and IPv6 PA prefixes, even for incoming > traffic. It's less reliable than BGP in theory since you'd be virtually > single-homed to your IRON provider but that might be a worthwhile > tradeoff since staying up is pretty much their purpose in life. > > You'd have to pay a third provider to terminate your tunnels, but that > might be cheaper than paying an extra BGP tax to both of your physical > providers. IRON appears to require much less configuration than BGP and > it can also provide IPv6 over v4-only providers (good luck finding *two* > broadband providers in the same location that provide IPv6 and BGP). > > -- > Wes Felter > IBM Research - Austin > > >
