re: [RRG] Why not take address depletion issue into account

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> I hope you are not saying that a Loc/ID split solution should solve
> this problem with NATs? There are solution to solve this in NATs. So
> LISP, colocated with a NAT will take advantage of the solution.
Some other id/loc split proposals including SIX/ONE, NODE ID and HRA can
kill these two "birds" with one stone.
> > If you want to deploy v6 EID, which means a change to host, ...
> No, not at all. Hosts support IPv6 today. So there are no further
> changes. You run IPv6 in hosts and routers at a site. The ISPs can run
> IPv4 or IPv6 as they choose.
Can most of the hosts and internal routers within site network worldwide
already support IPv6 today? If so, there would be a little pain in the
transition from v4 to v6 with the help of LISP, provided we put weather most
of the applications are v6-ready aside. 
> 1) If you put Loc/ID functionality in hosts, then they will have to
> change. Don't want to
>     do this because it kills deployability.
If you don't hurry to deploy LISP with v6 EID within the forthcoming 3-5
years, time should be enough to upgrade the host stack to support that
function if necessary.
> 2) The packet loss/delay is for the first packet of the first flow
> between two sites. This is
>     pretty minor and people have blown this out of porportion.
We need data to tell us the real impact, otherwise, LISP doesn't need to
propagate so many branches ;)
> 3) The ITR need not hold the entire mapping database. There is an
> option to do so, but it's not
>     required and arguably not needed.
Does Eliot also agree with this opinion? ^_^

Best regards,
Xiaohu Xu




--
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