2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski <luk...@bromirski.net>: > LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location* > prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would) > withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how > you count it, the number of *locations* will be somewhat > limited vs number of *PI* address spaces that everyone wants
I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of locations/sites would remain static. This is the basic issue that many folks gloss over: dramatically decreasing the barrier-to-entry for multi-homing or provider-independent addressing will, without question, dramatically increase the number of multi-homed or provider-independent sites. LISP "solves" this problem by using the router's FIB as a macro-flow-cache. That's good except that a site with a large number of outgoing macro-flows (either because it's a busy site, responding to an external DoS attack, or actually originating a DoS attack from a compromised host) will cripple that site's ITR. In addition, the current negative mapping cache scheme is far from ideal. I've written a couple of folks with a provably superior scheme (compared to existing work), and have received zero feedback. This is not good. > We may of course argue that the current routers are pretty > capable in terms of processing power for control-plane, but We agree that the ability to move tasks from the router to an external control plane is good. BGP may get better at this as time goes on, too. -- Jeff S Wheeler <j...@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts