On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > >> 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. >> > Done properly, a multi-homed end-site does not need to have > its own locator ID, but, could, instead, use the locator IDs of > all directly proximate Transit ASNs. >
This is exactly what LISP suggests. Your locators are provided by your provider. Luigi > I don't know if LISP particularly facilitates this, but, I think it > would be possible generically in a Locator/ID based system. > >> 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. >> > The closer you move the ITRs to the edge, the less of an issue this becomes. >> > > Owen > > >