[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Renumbering...
On 3 sep 2008, at 1:46, Noel Chiappa wrote:
So, again: as long as we have a supply of PI addresses, and the
ISP's will
continue to take them, there's no incentive for the users to do
anything at
all.
True. However, this doesn't mean we can't do anything useful, it just
means an important additional constraint. The "jack up" model can be
executed by the ISPs without cooperation from the users if we can
transparently turn PI space into EID space. So I'm less pessimistic.
(Keeping the users out of it also means that renumberability of the
locators shouldn't be an issue.)
But we do need to figure out a few things if we commit to going down
that road. One very important detail is whether we perform a lookup in
the BGP table first and then dump the traffic into the new system when
that lookup returns an empty answer, or we do a mapping lookup first,
and when that returns an empty answer, we send the traffic to the
"legacy" routing system.
In the latter case, the mapping system needs to be extremely fast and
robust. That will make deployment hard and risky. If we do the BGP
lookup first (which we know how to do fast and robust--with a limited
table at least) then experimentation and gradual deployment becomes a
lot easier, although it does add some complexity because the presence
of an EID prefix in the mapping system must be confirmed before the
same prefix can be removed from BGP. But in turn that can be made
easier if the mapping system supports third party en/de-capsulation.
I.e., if I have a large AS I encapsulate traffic for a destination
that doesn't run a decapsulator and decapsulate at my network borders
before the trafic leaves my AS.
--
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