On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:42:47PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote: > Excerpts from Christopher Morrow on Mon, Feb 02, 2009 01:21:19PM -0500: > > > According to your email to Robin, LISP/ALT currently makes the following > > > tradeoff: Portability of EID prefixes is limited geographically in > > > order to curb path stretch along the ALT topology to the maximum that > > > can happen within a geographical region. > > > > > > That's possible, of course. The cost is that networks scattered over > > > different parts of the world, such as those of enterprises with global > > > presence, cannot use a continuous address space internally -- even if > > > they all attach to the same provider. > > > > cant they? I thought one of the nice things about the loc/id split was > > I could number my internals out of whatever I wanted, spread over > > creation and the attachment points were the only things that required > > aggregation, no? > > Sure, but if one of your sites is in New Zealand, and has a prefix > where the physical ALT hierarchy is optimized for sites in Europe, a > source in New Zealand trying to contact your site would see more delay > during the Map-Request/Reply exchange, even though it they are in the > same town. However, Map-Request/Reply exchanges don't happen very > often, and the delay will be low (round trip across the Internet).
Or not at all if you're not the first folks communicating
between the sites.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
