Folks,
At the LISP chair's request, I will respond on the L3VPN mailing list only.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Xuxiaohu
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 11:34 AM
> To: Dino Farinacci; Robert Raszuk
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: 答复: [lisp] 答复: Prefix overlapping issue for draft-bonica-
> l3vpn-orf-covering-prefixes-00
>
> Hi Dino,
>
> the following is the original email:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Hi co-author of this draft,
>
> As I had mentioned at the mic, the mechanism proposed in this draft
> needs to consider the prefix overlapping issue which has been
> considered and addressed by LISP.
>
> To Ron,
>
> The default route on the spoke can not be resorted to address the
> potential issue caused by the prefix overlapping issue. The reason is
> that it's the longest-matching route 10/8, rather than the default
> route is used to route the packet destined for 10.10.10.10, in the case
> where a route for 10/8 has been returned to that spoke due to a request
> from that spoke for the longest-matching route for a given host address
> 10.0.0.1. As a result, the traffic for 10.10.10.10 would be forwarded
> to the nexthop for 10/8 which in turn forward that traffic according to
> a more spefic route for 10.10.10.10. This is suboptimal. Assume the
> traffic volume for the destination of 10.10.10.10 is high, how to
> trigger a requtst for a "real" direct route to 10.10.10.10 if there
> exists a host route for 10.10.10.10/32 at the hub? One possible way is
> to always request a more specific route until a host route for the
> destination of the received packet is found at the spoke.
>
> Since this issue has been disccussed at LISP WG many years before. I
> copy this email to LISP as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
