On Mar 31, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Gang Chen wrote:
Dear Tony and Lixia:
May I ask you question about ITR and ETR deployment location?
In the LISP draft-farinacci-lisp-06.txt, both CE and PE router can
be used for tunnel endpionts. I wonder to know where is the optimal
location to reduce router table size in DFZ greatly?
Best Regards
Gang Chen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*personal* view:
- the optimal location for tunnel end point is a good question
(which is an independent question from individual proposed solutions)
- map-n-encap approach reduces the global routing table by hiding user
network prefixes; the exact location of tunnel end point (PE or CE)
does not impact the DFZ table size in general, once the solution is
globally rolled out.
- the exact location of tunnel end point (PE or CE), I believe, does
have an impact on the details of a design, and more importantly, on
the incremental rollout (if interested, you may want to take a look of
the APT incremental deployment presentation slides from Philly meeting)
Lixia
--
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
