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

["Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>]

>  
> 
> |> 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 pass a lose-mode check since the route is in the table, which
is the current best practice for multi-homed networks.

> 
> 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?

Sorry, I don't admit this at all.

-Darrel

--
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