On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 08:57:08AM -0800, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) wrote: > What if a 3rd party provides a proxy between the two systems, > then incremental deployment is possible. Then networks who > are not LISP capable can reach EIDs that are not in the global > Routing table.
That's certainly a form of incremental deployment, and I alluded to it in my original message. The real question is if that's sufficient for a wide majority of business models. I'll take my own org as an example: we run an extremely reliable service, but we have dependencies on reaching customers and partners for content of various types. Much of that runs across direct private connections, so there's really no impact from LISP. Some of it, however, is over the Internet. Would a 3rd party proxy be sufficiently robust and reliable to permit me to make my site LISP capable and still have the level of connectivity my business requires to those customers? That's a very hard quesiton to answer. I'm not saying it's out of the question, but it's a very troublesome additional piece of complexity for a service provider to contemplate. I honestly don't know the answer right now. The concept is palatable, but it would depend on the business features of a 3rd party product. > Alternatively, what if an xTR performs NAT between PA space > and EID space? Where would PI fit in this? Renumbering into PA space isn't a viable option at the moment. I don't think I quite see the entire implications here, yet. Thanks! -David -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
