[RRG] Consequences of no renumbering...

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

Hi all,

So in thinking more about our recent consensus on renumbering, it seems to
me that this helps us prune the solution tree a bit.  In particular:

- For the entire class of 'transport' solutions that we've discussed, it
seems like renumbering would always be required for these solutions.  All of
the obvious transport protocol changes would utilize multiple PA addresses,
and since changing PA addresses would result in a renumbering event, it
seems like these solutions should be avoided.

- For the map-and-encap solutions, there seems like a similar issue.  If we
look at the current LISP transition plan, there is currently a requirement
for sites to renumber once to get into an aggregateable EID space.  

If renumbering is not required, then EID space doesn't aggregate.  If
transition boxes (PTRs) advertised EID space into legacy routing, then it
would imply that there wouldn't be any reduction in prefix count until
transition was wholly complete.  That doesn't seem very practical.

I'm not ready to say that there aren't transition schemes that could get
around this, but these are the issues that I'm seeing.

Comments?

Nomex on,
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