On 2007-12-12 13:21, Dino Farinacci wrote:
I don't disagree with anything below. My concern is that in the long term, we might see a swamp appearing in the LISP-based DFZ, just as we've seen a swamp appearing in the pure-BGP-based DFZ in the past (and as the large scale usage of IPv6 "PI" prefixes would cause in the pure-BGP4+-based IPv6 DFZ). So I'm suggesting, somewhat clumsily, that we need to design things in a way that would allow us to recurse the whole model if and when a swamp appears. Conceptually, I find that easier to think about in terms of multiple DFZs. I could be quite wrong, of course.I don't see why we can't "recurse one more time". The main LISP spec indicates that after prepending a header for Loc/ID split purposes, you can prepend one more the TE-ITR to TE-ETR purposes. So if the first Loc/ID split infrastructure runs level-0 LISP-ALT, the TE-based infrastructure can run, another LISP-ALT at level-1. Where the BGP-core today, level-0, and level-1 never connect to each other.
Bingo. I certainly hope that *one* more time would be enough.
I guess I'm arguing for a level number in the map entries, as future
proofing if we have to add levels later.
Brian
--
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