On Aug 7, 2012, at 10:50 , Wes Felter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/6/12 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> The goal here was to make this as simple and cost-effective as the NAT-based >> IPv4 solution currently in common use. There's no reason it can't be exactly >> that. >> >> It does provide advantages over the NAT-based solution (sessions can survive >> failover). > > What do people think about Fred Templin's IRON multihomed tunneling approach > (or LISP, I guess it can do it)? IRON should give you multihoming with stable > IPv4 and IPv6 PA prefixes, even for incoming traffic. It's less reliable than > BGP in theory since you'd be virtually single-homed to your IRON provider but > that might be a worthwhile tradeoff since staying up is pretty much their > purpose in life. > > You'd have to pay a third provider to terminate your tunnels, but that might > be cheaper than paying an extra BGP tax to both of your physical providers. > IRON appears to require much less configuration than BGP and it can also > provide IPv6 over v4-only providers (good luck finding *two* broadband > providers in the same location that provide IPv6 and BGP). > > -- > Wes Felter > IBM Research - Austin > > >
I think IRON has some promise as well and might be interesting in some scenarios. I think developing both is worth while. Different tools for different jobs. Owen
