Hi, Fred, On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> wrote: > The way I see it, the fundamental benefit of GSE or any of its successors, of > which ILNP is one, is that the edge network is able to operate as if its > address was provider-independent, and the transit domain is able to operate > as if the address is provider-allocated. Neither adds additional complexity, > as compared to (say) shim6, which forces the edge network to accept the > additional complexity of routing multiple prefixes for the same subnet, or a > truly PI network, which forces the transit domain to enumerate edge networks.
- quote end - This let's me raise two more questions. 1. Would it mean that, as long as routing scalability is concerned, adopting GSE would provide the same effect and so we wouldn't need the extra (small?) pain of adopting ILNP? 2. As I understand, in a multi(double)-homing situation, a site would be given two sets of PA locators. And so, subnet locators inside would be aggregated to two shorter aggregated locators; two, not one. You say above that, even with ILNP, there would be only single PA locater visible in DFZ. Perhaps, you're mistaken? -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
