I have updated the Summary and Analysis document: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/Ivip-summary.pdf
to cover the two alternatives to encapsulation: ETR Address Forwarding (EAF) - for IPv4 Prefix Label Forwarding (PLF) - for IPv6 The rest of the document has only minor improvements. The new material is at the start and the end. Older versions are still available - there is a changelog at the end. Ivip began as a map-encap proposal. However, it is no longer correct to describe Ivip as being a map-encap system, or to regard it as being closely related to LISP, APT or TRRP. There are some similarities with APT and LISP, but the differences are probably more important than the similarities. The long-term endpoint of Ivip, for both IPv4 and IPv6, is to use the above "Forwarding" arrangements, rather then encapsulation. This removes the need for solving some nasty PMTUD problems which are inherent in encapsulation. Consequently, ITRs and ETRs can be much simpler than with encapsulation. Forwarding is 100% efficient, since there is no encapsulation overhead. Ideally, Ivip would be implemented purely with "Forwarding". This requires modest upgrades to essentially all DFZ routers and some or many internal routers. Any router which classifies and forwards its packets with firmware, rather than hardware, can surely be upgraded to perform the new functions. These changes do not affect BGP at all. Ivip is best thought of as a core-edge separation solution to the routing scaling problem, with an optional map-encap mode if it is to be deployed before all DFZ routers can be upgraded. If it is deployed with encapsulation, all ITRs and ETRs will be capable of using "Forwarding" as soon as the DFZ routers are upgraded. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
