On 2008-03-23 06:22, Tony Li wrote: > > > |> Simply this: if return packets leaving a LISP site, headed > |for a non- > |> LISP > |> site, use a EID as the source address, then it is highly > |likely that > |> the > |> packets will be dropped due to the source address filtering. > | > |That problem exists today with a source address from a PI > |block. So if > |you want to deliver such packets, you don't do that today. > > > Correct, however, today the provider typically will have some involvement in > distributing the PI advertisement. This approach implies that the provider > now must be party to all EID allocations for the site and must make manual > configurations to allow new allocations. We all know how well that has > worked.
Maybe I'm naive, but I'd been assuming that EIDs would in practice be identically equal to addresses allocated under a registry-allocated PI prefix. So the provider can know about the prefix just like today, even if there's no advertisement. I don't see why that would change fundamentally, even if the proposed LISP-ALT EID prefix space is used. Brian > > Further, this isn't going to be effective if the provider is using uRPF > unless the provider inserts a static route. ;-( > > > |We can't be sure of anything at this point. Therefore, we can't be > |sure it won't hold water. > > > And you can't be sure that it will... > > Tony > > -- 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
