Re: [RRG] On the Transitionability of LISP

[Lars Westberg <Lars.westberg@ericsson.com>]

hi, 
I am new but I think it is an interesting discussion. some questions.

Isn't the current BGP too complicated already ?
Shouldn't the target be to reduce it ?

It sound simpler to have separated protocols rather that extend BGP.

regards Lasse

Jari Arkko wrote:

Joel,

#email catchup mode on
> Actually, there seem to be quite a few stages between
> advertise all locators in BGP, exactly as today
> advertise nothing in BGP
>
> For example, at a later stage in deployment one could easily imagine
> advertising only heavily aggregated reachability in BGP, for those
> sites that have not upgraded, while using LISP (or other solutions)
> for the bulk of ones traffic.
> That would give significant benefit without losing connectivity from
> the non-upgraded world.

Yes -- but that still begs the question of what drives the removal
of information from BGP. Presumably there must be some
advantage to the new model (better TE, better resiliency
in network failures). So this translates to a disadvantage
to the old system, assuming only an aggregated
reachability is advertised. Why would I as an end-site
want to advertise less in BGP? There is no push-back
or cost involved in that, not for me at least...

Jari


--
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