[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



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.

That problem exists today with a source address from a PI block. So if you want to deliver such packets, you don't do that today.

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?

1) We need solutions to a technical problem. We understand the problem and solution space.
2) We don't know the business benefits yet of deploying PTRs.
3) There are business benefits for deploying LISP.
4) You need to have interworking between upgraded sites and non- upgraded sites.

We can't be sure of anything at this point. Therefore, we can't be sure it won't hold water.

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