On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Hi Brian, We don't want to trade consumption in the routing table for consumption in the source filter; they both consume the FIB. If your transit provider is filtering your source addresses like he's supposed to, he'll have to carry a filter for every distinct block of EIDs downstream. In practice this means that he'll find it too much trouble to carry any source filters and we'll have a fresh problem with spoofed source addresses. The problem isn't especially tractable with BGP but it looks worse under map-enacap. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr ....................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- 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
