Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Regarding:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-00

and further to Brian's request for more information on Darrel's:

>> You can consider PTRs optional, but NAT is a core
>> requirement for any sensible interworking between LISP and non LISP-NR
>> sites.

I too would appreciate an explanation.

I understand that Proxy Tunnel Routers advertise the prefixes
enclosing one or more (ideally many) EIDs to the DFZ, attracting
packets from networks without ITRs, and then tunnelling those
packets to the correct ETR.  I can't imagine how LISP could be
incrementally deployed without Proxy Tunnel Routers.

The LISP-NAT approach doesn't seem useful to me.  See my 4 point
critique:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2007/msg00674.html

I don't recall any response to that critique.

  - Robin



--
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