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

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

On 2008-03-25 13:42, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |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.
> 
> 
> It's unfortunate that it wouldn't change, because the provider would need to
> know about both the PA allocation and the EID assignment.  Effectively, it's
> double the hassle factor.

Er, right, which I guess is why Plan A for IPv6 has always been
pure PA, and use multiple prefixes on a site that has multiple
ISPs. But the premise in RRG is that this won't fly, and hence we get
this hassle. If Bill is right about source filtering being sacrificed
as a result, there seems to be a biggish fly in the ointment.

    Brian

--
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