On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > If destined to non-LISP sites, they go natively, just like they would in a > router today. If destined for LISP sites and sent natively because you don't > want to store the locator-set for the site (due to the cache filling up), > they go natively and will hit the closest PITR which will encapsulate to the > destination LISP site.
But the PITR is subject to the same scaling limitations. The problem is unchanged. The only difference in the case of the PITR is it can be responsible for less than the entire destination address space; but an ITR could also be implemented that way. -- Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
