On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote: >> >>> On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>>> LISP can also be a good option. Comes with slightly more overhead in terms >>>> of >>>> encapsulation/etc. than the GRE tunnels I use and has limited (if any) >>>> functionality >>>> for IPv4 (which GRE supports nicely). >>> >>> Maybe you meant ILNP here? AFAIK, IPv4 and IPv6 are equal citizens for LISP. >> >> Comparing GRE with LISP is like comparing /etc/hosts with the global DNS >> system. ;-) >> >> I don't understand the comments about LISP and IPv4. IPv4 works just >> excellent with LISP. I have a IPv4 block at home which I multi-home over my >> IPv6-only DSL and IPv4-only FTTH line. >> >> LISP is pretty address family agnostic: IPv4 over IPv4, IPv4 over IPv6, IPv6 >> over IPv4, IPv6 over IPv6, all work without problems. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Job > > Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional prefixes > which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in the BGP is needed only to make non-LISP sites talk to LISP sites. Even there you can aggressively aggregate, as explained in draft-ietf-lisp-interworking. As long as the LISP deployment progress you can even withdraw some prefixes from the BGP infrastructure and advertise only a larger aggregate in order for legacy site to reach the new LISP site. Luigi > > Owen > >
