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

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|> uRPF is one example of an implementation of this type of sanity  
|> checking.
|> You can also do it via ACLs.  The concept is the same either way.
|
|Okay and what was your point?


Simply this: if return packets leaving a LISP site, headed for a non-LISP
site, use a EID as the source address, then it is highly likely that the
packets will be dropped due to the source address filtering.

It would seem like you would want to encapsulate the outbound packet at
least as far as the PTR to protect against this.


|We can't be all things to all people. But there is a benefit to  
|transition to LISP so the providers can reduce their routing 
|tables at  
|the same time as maintaining non-LISP site to LISP site connectivity.


So you admit then that your argument about the benefits of hosting a PTR
don't hold water?


Tony


--
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