RE: [RRG] On the Transitionability of LISP

["Darrel Lewis \(darlewis\)" <darlewis@cisco.com>]

Christian Vogt <> wrote on :

> David:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> I do agree that, to remain reachable, upgraded edge networks
> would have to use their old locator space in addition to the
> new ID space.  What I am concerned about are the following
> two problems that arise from this:
> 
>   1. It defeats all of the benefits of the ID/locator split.
>   2. It makes reliable address resolution infeasible.
> 

Just a note:

If a site has existing PI space, then their keeping this space in the DFZ doesn't increase the DFZ's state.



-D

--
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