In einer eMail vom 12.07.2009 01:47:45 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Heiner - How would map-and-encap schemes be incrementally deployable if they didn't use IP addresses for both address realms? Even translation-based schemes need IP addresses as locators for backwards compatibility. - Christian Let's put it differently: Incremental deployability requires still BGP to overcome the main function of BGP which is the non-scalable way to disseminate all these hundred thousands of prefixes. The methods are not new: Remember BGP-based dissemination of MPLS-VPN sites (just lacking the goal to build ONE SINGLE "internet-VPN") : here the information are labels, i.e. not IP addresses. Also remember LISP's default mapper. Issueing a prefix of length 0 might attract traffic destined for a node which doesn't propagate its traditional reachability prefixes anymore but just new routing info for a new architecture, analogously to the MPLS-labels. Heiner On Jul 11, 2009, [email protected] wrote: > Sorry Christian that I have a different opinion. At first, a locator, > i.e. a location information, must be routable (aggregatable is > something > completely different) and, of course, it must be written somewhere, > e.g. > into the field for destination IP address, and/or destination > MAC-address and eventually, for some transitional time, into a new > additional header. Even LISP authors emphasized that the locator > addresses inside the LISP header could potentially make up a new > namespace. However it is the LISP supporters' decision to use > non-routable IP addresses instead, or better said, the same > IP-address-based routing technique which produced and produces the > scalability problem. > > Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
