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

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> > LISP-NAT can work along side PTRs nicely, I can describe how this  
> > works
> > in more detail if there is interest.  But the trade off in this  
> > space is
> > that PTRs allow for sites not to have to deal with Interworking, at  
> > the
> > cost of connections inbound to the site potentially having stretch.
> > LISP-NAT allows site independent Interworking, with the (pretty well
> > understood) limitations of NAT.
>
> I was afraid you'd say that ;-). I think there will be a lot of  
> resistance
> to a solution that require v6-v6 NAT; we pretty much know NAT is
> inevitable to deal with IPv4 address space, but it would be very
> distressing to have non-reversible mappings in the IPv6 address
> space. LISP has the nice property of reversing the mapping in
> general, and I don't like any solution that loses it.

With IPv6 and a single allocation for the global EID-prefix space, we  
can use PTRs very efficiently by injecting a single route from 100s of  
places.

So we don't have to use NAT for IPv6.

Dino


--
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