Re: [RRG] Question about ITR and ETR deployment

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

Excerpts from Lixia Zhang at 22:56:42 -0700 on Mon 31 Mar 2008:
> 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?

> *personal* view:
> - 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)

The more we take these ideas and try to apply them to real life
operations, the more we realize how helpful coordination among xTRs
is.  In order for a site to be able to coordinate behavior of its
xTRs, to any degree and in any way it chooses, it is good to have them
under the site's direct control.  I don't believe we can predict or
should control how a site's xTRs will need to work together -- they
might do something surprising.  So I don't think a site should depend
on inter-provider cooperation.  That means I believe that it's better
to place xTR functionality in CEs.

Scott

--
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