Isn't 153.16.0.0/16 already the de facto ipv4 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block? > -----Original Message----- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:32 AM > To: Lori Jakab > Cc: Paul Vinciguerra; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lisp] lisp deployment document > > We could request a block of Class B IPv4 prefixes but the working group > didn't want to do that. > > Dino > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Lori Jakab <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11/07/12 16:16, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> The LISP-only EID-prefix is one use of the draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block draft. > > > > Sure, but that's IPv6-only. > > > > -Lori > > > >> > >> 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
