On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Robin Whittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2 - All currently potentially practical (no host changes) solutions > (LISP, APT, Ivip, TRRP and I think Six/One Router) provide a > single solution for all sizes of end-user network.
Hi Robin, That's not really true of TRRP. TRRP doesn't replace BGP, it supplements BGP. At the end of the day, the individual network operators decide which prefixes are allowed into whatever remains of their respective BGP tables and which must use map-encap to transit their network. Addresses remaining in BGP are usable for all purposes they're now used for, plus providing TRRP exits and map servers. Although I didn't describe it this way, the practical result should be a balance affected as much by who is willing to pay to be in the BGP table as much as it is by the overall table size. In other words, the deployment of TRRP should, in theory, bring about a natural, economically-driven balance between BGP-based large sites, TRRP-based sites of various sizes and provider-aggregated sites of various sizes. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
