Re: [RRG] anycast/default as a transition tool [On the Transitionability of LISP]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Christian Vogt wrote:
> (The reason one needs anycast IDs is to let multiple alternative
> providers perform the same remote mapping for an edge network.  Unicast
> IDs would bind the remote mapping to a single provider.  This would
> create a dependency of the edge network on that provider, which is
> exactly what we want to avoid with multi-homing.)

The anycast model would (AFAICS) be similar if not identical to 
advertising a default route to the non-upgraded networks.

In fact, that is already somewhat common in today's Internet's smaller 
providers which don't want/need to carry the full BGP table.

Both anycast and default route also have similar failure modes, i.e., 
if a default/anycast route is advertised by a router which doesn't 
have full topology information (or at least a lead where to forward 
the packets to get it), connectivity of Internet is going to be 
balkanized depending on which anycast/default you happen to be using.

Maybe we don't need a solution at the edges, just more default routing
:-)

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

--
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