Re: [RRG] Question about ITR and ETR deployment

[Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

On Mar 31, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Gang Chen wrote:
> Dear Tony and Lixia:
>        May I ask you question about ITR and ETR deployment location?  
> In the LISP draft-farinacci-lisp-06.txt, both CE and PE router can  
> be used  for tunnel endpionts. I wonder to know where is the optimal  
> location to reduce router table size in DFZ greatly?
>
> Best Regards
> Gang Chen
> phdgang@gmail.com
*personal* view:

- the optimal location for tunnel end point is a good question
  (which is an independent question from individual proposed solutions)

- map-n-encap approach reduces the global routing table by hiding user  
network prefixes; the exact location of tunnel end point (PE or CE)  
does not impact the DFZ table size in general, once the solution is  
globally rolled out.

- the exact location of tunnel end point (PE or CE), I believe, does  
have an impact on the details of a design, and more importantly, on  
the incremental rollout (if interested, you may want to take a look of  
the APT incremental deployment presentation slides from Philly meeting)

Lixia

--
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