[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
Simply this: if return packets leaving a LISP site, headed for a non-
site, use a EID as the source address, then it is highly likely that
packets will be dropped due to the source address filtering.
That problem exists today with a source address from a PI block. So if
you want to deliver such packets, you don't do that today.
It would seem like you would want to encapsulate the outbound packet
least as far as the PTR to protect against this.
|We can't be all things to all people. But there is a benefit to
|transition to LISP so the providers can reduce their routing
|the same time as maintaining non-LISP site to LISP site connectivity.
So you admit then that your argument about the benefits of hosting a
don't hold water?
1) We need solutions to a technical problem. We understand the problem
and solution space.
2) We don't know the business benefits yet of deploying PTRs.
3) There are business benefits for deploying LISP.
4) You need to have interworking between upgraded sites and non-
We can't be sure of anything at this point. Therefore, we can't be
sure it won't hold water.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org 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