The LISP-only EID-prefix is one use of the draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block draft.

Dino

On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Lori Jakab <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thank you for the feedback on the document, it's great having the
> operational community participate. Indeed, the existance of PxTR's are
> making the ping check less meaningful. How about combining the ping
> check with a traceroute? Even if the routers carrying the LISP
> encapsulated packets won't show up on a traceroute, you can see if the
> encapsulation/decapsulation happens at the expected locations (xTRs
> instead of PxTRs) or not.
> 
> The LISP-only EID prefix you propose is definitely a good option too.
> But if I understand it correctly, it depends on a third party running a
> known good LISP test site. At the time of writing we didn't know of any
> such service, so it was not included as an possibility.
> 
> Regading deployment options, why do you consider the first and second
> one separately? According to the ddt-root.org web site, the Beta network
> is a DDT connected LISP island as well. Sure, it runs deeper in the
> tree, delegating the 153.16/16 further down, but I wouldn't look at it
> as a separate deployment option.
> 
> -Lori
> 
> On 11/07/12 04:19, Paul Vinciguerra wrote:
>> 
>> Jakab, et al. Expires April 23, 2013 [Page 21]
>> 
>> Internet-Draft LISP Deployment October 2012
>> 
>> * To verify LISP connectivity, ping LISP connected sites. See
>> 
>> http://www.lisp4.net/ and/or http://www.lisp6.net/ for
>> 
>> potential candidates.
>> 
>> This section seems overly simple.
>> 
>> There are three deployment options that I am aware of:
>> 
>> ·Deployment in the Beta network
>> 
>> ·Deployment in a separate LISP Island connected via DDT
>> 
>> ·Deployment in a separate LISP Island not connected via DDT
>> 
>> With PxTR’s in the mix, pinging LISP sites doesn’t assure end-end LISP
>> connectivity. It is our experience that PxTR’s just magically make
>> things work, and because of that, it doesn’t always flow the way you
>> think it does.
>> 
>> There probably needs to be some prefix that doesn’t have a coarse
>> aggregate announced into the DFZ for testing end-end LISP connectivity
>> for the first two deployment options listed above. If you’re the last
>> deployment case, you’re on your own to verify end-end LISP connectivity.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to