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

[RRG] Re:

References: <60C4A248E730F249990993E3B9BD44D8053E2860@xmb-sjc-218.amer.cisco.com > <47E1C809.5010406@gmail.com> <B7E8AB73-4E42-44F7-BEC5-45872BD831C8@cisco.com > <47E1FFA5.4010703@piuha.net> <F855FFFA-F386-4070-95DF-D5A7B02B9EDC@cisco.com > <47E2205C.8010808@piuha.net> <010601c88ab2$4ab66ba0$bb2b359b@ad.redback.com > <291394F6-A8EB-402F-B0A6-F7A17F93C73D@cisco.com> <012301c88ab7$a30c7510$bb2b359b@ad.redback.com > <4C4633AD-01BE-4E82-B185-86C4A33D1CAA@cisco.com> <014e01c88af4$f6c83b70$bb2b359b@ad.redback.com > <EDF6F4F8-2312-4697-A026-CEA3844C6419@cisco.com> <002801c88bed$05c47410$6401a8c0@ad.redback.com > <E5BA138D-AB44-49AE-8910-72EC2EACDADE@cisco.com> <005601c88c41$5f7d28e0$6401a8c0@ad.redback.com > <47E8418F.7060407@gmail.com> <009301c88e11$1eb25110$bb2b359b@ad.redback.com > <292BDD7E-9482-4C79-BFE5-6AFE0C2E33A2@cisco.com> <0a4501c88e1e$1f359ef0$6401a8c0@atlanta.polycom.com > <42610970-29F8-4900-BA92-9ACA6CBB60EF@cisco.com> <003401c88e23$61d1d440$6401a8c0@ad.redback.com > <EA339852-22A4-477D-9420-A2D2F6 
	BC859F@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:32:27 -0700
Message-ID: <008d01c88e28$d9f24b30$6401a8c0@ad.redback.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <EA339852-22A4-477D-9420-A2D2F6BC859F@cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AciOJKGG6X5KILJPSuiq+8W4q4NJ9wAA8fLA
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=tony.li@tony.li; dkim=neutral 
Return-Path: tony.li@tony.li
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2008 03:32:31.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB791240:01C88E28] 


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 you know the knee-jerk reaction to NATs.


|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.
I don't think "deployment" is binary. It is continual, and as the scale increases, costs could be more.
Agree, on the end-goal. But as you might know, I think we have a decent one when all things are considered. We don't have perfection but I don't think we can. 

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