On 11/07/12 17:52, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> On 11/07/12 17:42, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>> Isn't 153.16.0.0/16 already the de facto ipv4 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block? >>> Defacto, but an individual owns it and has been gracious to lend it out. >>> I'm not sure he would agree on global general use. Plus it is only a single >>> /16. >> ...and is advertized in BGP, so it's not EID-only and the PxTR problem >> is still there, unless it is broken up into smaller prefixes (which is >> probably not what we want). > But it will always be injected in underlying BGP because you need non-LISP > sites to talk to this destination prefix. The point is that this prefix is > not used as a locator (i.e. it is not the outer address of any LISP > encapsulated packet).
Right, but if I understood it correctly (and Paul, please correct me if I got it wrong), Paul was advocating for the existance of a small block that is a "hole" in the DFZ, as a reliable way to determine LISP connectivity. Do we want to ask for a block specifically for that purpose? -Lori On 11/07/12 04:19, Paul Vinciguerra wrote: [...] > 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. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
