Hi again Dino,
|I am saying there are multiple ways to go. You could have a LISP site |that does NAT even when there are PTRs deployed. | |But when the LISP site sources packets, it's one type of |address, that |is the source address of the packet that is put on the CE-PE link. So |when a LISP site talks to another LISP site, that source |address is an |RLOC from the ISPs block. When that same LISP site is sending |to a non- |LISP site, the ITR can translate it's source address to the same RLOC |as in the LISP-to-LISP case. Ok, I'm fine with that. You're effectively shifting to a NAT approach for transition. If you do that, do you even need PTRs anymore? |Well, I'll ask you the same thing I ask Yakov, give me an alternative |that has a lower cost of deployment. I'm not out to optimize for the lower cost of deployment. That's a price that we pay once. I'm much more concerned with having the right end-goal. A cheap deployment of a lousy end-goal isn't worth it in the first place. 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
