> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <snip> > There's something I don't understand about your model. > You assert that the DFZ only contains routes for RLOCs. > But today the DFZ only contains routes for EIDs, in reality. > Don't you need to either operate with two co-existing DFZs > (DFZ-old with EID routes, and DFZ-new with RLOC routes), or > distinguish the two kinds of routes within a single DFZ? >
I'm not sure I completely follow the above. There is only one DFZ, this is the global routing table of today. When LISP sites are added, their EIDs may not be found in the DFZ. The draft defines those as LISP-Non Routable, or 'LISP-NR' sites. One way to provide reachability to those LISP-NR sites is to have Proxy Tunnel Routers that take LISP-NR EIDs, summarize them, and announce these summaries into the DFZ. This should lead to far fewer routing entries compared to just having LISP-NR sites redistribute their EIDs into the DFZ themselves. Note that this will increase stretch to connections between non-LISP sites and LISP-NR sites - depending on how widespread PTRs are deployed. Lets say for example new LISP sites are allocated prefixes (EIDs) from 223.0.0.0/8. Hundreds of sites have subnets of various lengths are allocated from within this range. The PTR, however, only has to announce 223.0.0.0/8. Traffic engineering to LISP-NR sites is handled via the LISP system. PTRs encapsulate then send towards those site's RLOCs. > The PTRs will act as interworking units between DFZ-old and > DFZ-new, and I guess that as this gets deployed, DFZ-old will > fragment and be reduced to stubs. I think your DFZ-new above is the LISP mapping system. So there is the global routing table, the DFZ, and a mapping system. The Mapping System does not follow topology, it follows allocations. The mapping system does not imply reachability, it merely holds subscription time interconnection mapping data. Thus the mapping system should have much different scaling characteristics than the current global DFZ (your DFZ-old above). > > Hmm. It's beginning to seem familiar. Change the captions and > it's page 7 of http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/layers.pdf, > or I have misunderstood your model completely. > I think we've not reached an understanding yet! Thanks for your comments. -Darrel -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
