[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] On the Transitionability of LISP



	Christian,

> The requirement for support on both sides implies that an "upgraded"
> edge network using mapped IDs will no longer be reachable from "legacy"
> edge networks that do not yet support the mapping.  This is a
> disincentive for edge networks to adopt the ID/locator split mechanism
> during an early transition stage.

	This would seem to be incorrect. There is no reason that
	early adopters need withdraw their "legacy" routes from
	the DFZ until it makes sense. So legacy sites reach the
	site via the legacy system, and the upgraded sites use
	the new mechanism. You could even have example.com
	(legacy) and example-new.com (or whatever). Or both,
	depending on what makes sense.

	It also seems pretty obvious that more work is required
	on transition strategies, but I just wanted to mention
	that one could imagine many scenarios in which benefit
	can be accrued w/o a flag day (i.e., incrementally). 

	Dave

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature