On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, we did think people would get this reaction to the registration > services. But that is not what was intended. The registration service is > used so an ETRs at a site can tell the database mapping system that they are > available to answer Map-Requests. They are not really registering mappings. > They are registering the EID-prefixes they are authoriatively going to > answer for. The list of RLOCs in a Map-Register message don't have to be all > the RLOCs used to encapsulate data to the site. It's just a list of RLOCs > willing to answer Map-Requests for the site. > >> ITR/ETRs, if they have "subscribed" for that specific EID during the >> last , e.g. 24 hours. The update churn is not "flat" anymore, all MS >> will be influenced but not all ITR/ETR, except if they have been using >> the affected EID. >> Or have I misunderstood something? > > No, it's not that dynamic. We are not claiming you Register and timeout for > achieving EID mobility. >
Aah, I think I got it. LISP is similar to SIP, setting up data connections instead of sessions over the IPv4 backbone and the main target is enterprises that are looking for multihomed solutions and a transition to IPv6, right? >> Then we have the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space, when that >> occurs we have to upgrade the hosts anyway and my draft is trying to >> address that issue. I'm little bit early with my proposal but now I >> can see both fitting together on a high level. Then a commercial: >> draft 01 is on its way through the process - the LSR can be removed in >> the future and also "session based" multihoming can be achieved >> without the need to implement AS border routing. > > Well, I'll use this opportunity to say, that once the ISPs get back PA > blocks from the sites that move to LISP and decide to get PI blocks, the > ISPs can now assign RLOCs to many more sites and those sites can run > IPv6-only and use IPv6 addresses as EIDs. > > So the fact that IPv4 addresses become available is not to keep IPv4 living > longer, but to accelerate the adoption of IPv6. > > Dino Ok, I don't want to start a debate here, but some comments on that topic anyway. I have recently been working with enterprises helping them with their IT projects. If you have a proposal for them you have to have an answer to "how will this support your business better" and "what's the return of investment" - if you don't have something supporting those questions then the CIO starts to throw shoes on you. That's why IPv6 has been in a catch-22 situation for about ten years...IPv4 had a lot of answers to those questions and that's why it got so successful. -- patte _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
