[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
Hi again Dino,
|I am saying there are multiple ways to go. You could have a LISP site
|that does NAT even when there are PTRs deployed.
|But when the LISP site sources packets, it's one type of
|is the source address of the packet that is put on the CE-PE link. So
|when a LISP site talks to another LISP site, that source
|address is an
|RLOC from the ISPs block. When that same LISP site is sending
|to a non-
|LISP site, the ITR can translate it's source address to the same RLOC
|as in the LISP-to-LISP case.
Ok, I'm fine with that. You're effectively shifting to a NAT approach for
transition. If you do that, do you even need PTRs anymore?
|Well, I'll ask you the same thing I ask Yakov, give me an alternative
|that has a lower cost of deployment.
I'm not out to optimize for the lower cost of deployment. That's a price
that we pay once. I'm much more concerned with having the right end-goal.
A cheap deployment of a lousy end-goal isn't worth it in the first place.
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