On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:30 , Robert Bonomi wrote: >> From [email protected] Wed Dec 8 15:36:44 >> 2010 >> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:34:47 -0600 >> From: Jack Bates <[email protected]> >> To: David Conrad <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? >> Cc: NANOG list <[email protected]> >> >> On 12/8/2010 3:12 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Cameron, >>> >>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: >>>> I believe a lot of folks think the routing paths should be tightly >>>> coupled with the physical topology. >>> >>> The downside, of course, being that if you change your location >>> within the physical topology, you have to renumber. Enterprises have >>> already voted with their feet that this isn't acceptable with IPv4 >>> and they'll no doubt do the same with IPv6. >>> >>>> In a mature IPv6 world, that is sane, i am not sure what the real >>>> value of LISP is. >>> >>> Sanity is in the eye of the beholder. The advantage a LISP(-like) >>> scheme provides is a way of separating location from identity, >>> allowing for arbitrary topology change (and complexity in the form of >>> multi-homing) without affecting the identities of the systems on the >>> network. Changing providers or multi-homing would thus not result in >>> a renumbering event or pushing yet another prefix into the DFZ. >>> >> >> I think the issue, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that LISP does not >> address issues of traffic engineering? A lot of the additional routes in >> DFZ are there specifically to handle traffic engineering. >
LISP has TE properties based on priority of the locators and weight (for load balancing). You can read: http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/system/files/inm08.pdf Luigi > The primary thing that a LISP-like approach accomplishes is the 'de-coupling" > of infrastructure and leaf networks. You can mess with either one, w/o > having any effect on the other. > > >
