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

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-03-23 06:22, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |> 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.
> 
> 
> Correct, however, today the provider typically will have some involvement in
> distributing the PI advertisement.  This approach implies that the provider
> now must be party to all EID allocations for the site and must make manual
> configurations to allow new allocations.  We all know how well that has
> worked.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd been assuming that EIDs would in practice be
identically equal to addresses allocated under a registry-allocated
PI prefix.  So the provider can know about the prefix just like today,
even if there's no advertisement. I don't see why that would change
fundamentally, even if the proposed LISP-ALT EID prefix space is used.

   Brian

> 
> Further, this isn't going to be effective if the provider is using uRPF
> unless the provider inserts a static route.  ;-(
> 
> 
> |We can't be sure of anything at this point. Therefore, we can't be  
> |sure it won't hold water.
> 
> 
> And you can't be sure that it will... 
> 
> 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