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

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

Hi again Dino,


|I am saying there are multiple ways to go. You could have a LISP site  
|that does NAT even when there are PTRs deployed. 
|
|But when the LISP site sources packets, it's one type of 
|address, that  
|is the source address of the packet that is put on the CE-PE link. So  
|when a LISP site talks to another LISP site, that source 
|address is an  
|RLOC from the ISPs block. When that same LISP site is sending 
|to a non- 
|LISP site, the ITR can translate it's source address to the same RLOC  
|as in the LISP-to-LISP case.


Ok, I'm fine with that.  You're effectively shifting to a NAT approach for
transition.  If you do that, do you even need PTRs anymore?


|Well, I'll ask you the same thing I ask Yakov, give me an alternative  
|that has a lower cost of deployment.


I'm not out to optimize for the lower cost of deployment.  That's a price
that we pay once.  I'm much more concerned with having the right end-goal.
A cheap deployment of a lousy end-goal isn't worth it in the first place.

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