[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
On 2008-03-23 06:22, Tony Li wrote:
> |> Simply this: if return packets leaving a LISP site, headed
> |for a non-
> |> LISP
> |> site, use a EID as the source address, then it is highly
> |likely that
> |> the
> |> 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.
> Correct, however, today the provider typically will have some involvement in
> distributing the PI advertisement. This approach implies that the provider
> now must be party to all EID allocations for the site and must make manual
> configurations to allow new allocations. We all know how well that has
Maybe I'm naive, but I'd been assuming that EIDs would in practice be
identically equal to addresses allocated under a registry-allocated
PI prefix. So the provider can know about the prefix just like today,
even if there's no advertisement. I don't see why that would change
fundamentally, even if the proposed LISP-ALT EID prefix space is used.
> Further, this isn't going to be effective if the provider is using uRPF
> unless the provider inserts a static route. ;-(
> |We can't be sure of anything at this point. Therefore, we can't be
> |sure it won't hold water.
> And you can't be sure that it will...
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