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

Re: [RRG] On the Transitionability of LISP

David,
But what would be the trigger ? What makes a critical mass that anyone could stop advertising their addresses into DFZ ? 

What happens then to some which still did not joined LISP cart ?
I think the suggestion Vince once mentioned on the list reg LPAs (Lisp Proxy Aggregators) would be a much better answer and transition strategy. But it is also true that they would tend to do much worse job then IViP as that one relies on huge chunks of addresses to be injected into DFZ not just what can be aggregated at a given point of time. 

Cheers,
R.


	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


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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