On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: > > On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> 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 > Who said anything about BGP? I was talking about the amount of additional IP space needed vs. the amount of IPv4 free space remaining.
Owen
