On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Any edges which talk to a significant number of other networks will
have to cache a significant portion of the Internet, which will
actually lead to edge boxes having to be larger than they are now.
This is not accurate. For networks with
On 2011-04-13 21:13, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
Plain and simple, it does not scale up any better than injecting more
routes into the DFZ, unless you 1) accept macro-flow-based routing; or
2) scale up the size of your FIB along with the much larger number of
prefixes which would be introduced by
2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how
you count it, the number of *locations* will be somewhat
limited vs
On 2011-04-18 21:18, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of
locations/sites would remain static.
It would grow, nobody said it would remain static.
But still - it will grow slower than the number of new
full allocations - covering both location *and*
In a message written on Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:44:03PM +0200, Lukasz Bromirski
wrote:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how
you count it, the number of
On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski luk...@bromirski.net:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how
you count it,
On 2011-04-18 21:50, Leo Bicknell wrote:
To my mind then, LISP moves these tables from a few thousand DFZ
routers managed (generally) by well staffed engineering teams to
tens or hundreds of thousands of edge boxes, in many cases managed
by the clueless.
This is something out of practical
On 4/7/11 7:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
Hi Daniel,
all IPv6 multihoming ideas are very theoretical today. None of them
is ready to use. Shim6 looks very good, but it requires support on both
a client and a server side. As you can
On 4/13/11 12:13 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
However, LISP does have non-Internet applications which are
interesting. You can potentially have multi-homed connectivity
between your own branch offices, using one or more public Internet
connections at each branch, and your own private mapping
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Luigi Iannone
lu...@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
This is not true. There are several works out there showing that the FIB will
not grow as you are saying.
Having taken some time to discuss this off-list with Luigi. I'd
already read the paper he had in mind,
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 17:26 , Owen DeLong wrote:
But can you explain better? Why should LISP require more IP space than
normal IPv4 deployment?
If you are a new site, you ask for an IP block. This is independent from
whether or not you will use LISP.
Sure, but, if you also need
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 23:53 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I do tend to think that any technology sufficiently confusing that I cannot
understand it well after reasonable effort is of questionable value
for wide deployment.
The
On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
Dear All,
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
LISP can also be a good option. Comes with
On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
Dear All,
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional
prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in the BGP is needed only to
make non-LISP sites talk to
On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:30 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional
prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:37 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:30 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact I keep thinking I just about
understand LISP and then get told
that my understanding is incorrect (repeatedly).
I agree it is not simple.
At a conceptual level, we can think of
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact I keep thinking I just about
understand LISP and then get told
that my understanding is incorrect
On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact I keep thinking I just about
understand LISP and then get told
that my understanding is incorrect (repeatedly).
I agree it
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I do tend to think that any technology sufficiently confusing that I cannot
understand it well after reasonable effort is of questionable value
for wide deployment.
The secret is to ignore all the crazy acronyms and boil it
Dear All,
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
LISP can also be a good option. Comes with slightly more overhead in terms of
encapsulation/etc. than the GRE tunnels I use and has limited (if any)
functionality
for IPv4 (which GRE supports
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders j...@instituut.net wrote:
Dear All,
On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
LISP can also be a good option. Comes with slightly more overhead in terms
of
encapsulation/etc.
On 4/7/11 8:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
honto???
your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on.
routing != multihomed
it's not an autonomous system it's
On Apr 7, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
honto???
(I think you meant honto desu ka??).
hai. Honto desu.
Owen
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
honto???
your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on.
routing != multihomed
try rfc 1812
randy
Many
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
effective and much simpler.
I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast
check out these things called routing protocols.
randy
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
effective and much simpler.
I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS
Dear Michel,
On 7 Apr 2011, at 21:30, Michel de Nostredame wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY dstick...@optilian.com
wrote:
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
effective and much simpler.
On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise
Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you
don't need to
change the host but only the CPE. I've been using it to multi-home my house
and it works
fine. I'm
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise
Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you
don't need to
change the host but only the CPE. I've been using it
On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/8/11 8:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
As Seth pointed out SHIM6 is still an academic exercise
Another Locator / ID separator protocol is LISP. The advantage is that you
don't need to
change the
Hello all,
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ?
In my research into the proposed solutions I came across this document
IEEE
why would you do that for?
- Original Message
From: Daniel STICKNEY dstick...@optilian.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:27:01 AM
Subject: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
Hello all,
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6
how many ip addresses do you have ?
- Original Message
From: Daniel STICKNEY dstick...@optilian.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:27:01 AM
Subject: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
Hello all,
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming
have you thought about taking a Cisco training course?
- Original Message
From: Daniel STICKNEY dstick...@optilian.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:27:01 AM
Subject: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
Hello all,
I'm investigating how
if that kind of knowledge can be learned in any Cisco course
today. I don't think so.
Tomas
- Original Message
From: Daniel STICKNEY dstick...@optilian.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:27:01 AM
Subject: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
Hello
On Apr 7, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
Hi Daniel,
all IPv6 multihoming ideas are very theoretical today. None of them
is ready to use. Shim6 looks very good, but it requires support on both
a client and a server side. As you can guess, there is only experimental
support for
On 4/7/2011 02:27, Daniel STICKNEY wrote:
Hello all,
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ?
In my research into the proposed
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEY dstick...@optilian.com wrote:
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone already set this up or tested it ?
When you talking
Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEYdstick...@optilian.com wrote:
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different ISPs), and I wanted to see if this wheel has already been
invented. Has anyone
In message 4d9e27a5.3040...@forthnet.gr, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou writes:
Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEYdstick...@optilian.com wr
ote:
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two DSL lines
(different
On 2011-04-07, at 17:07, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
Joe
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
honto???
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou ach...@forthnet.gr wrote:
Michel de Nostredame wrote on 07/04/2011 22:30:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Daniel STICKNEYdstick...@optilian.com
wrote:
I'm investigating how to setup multihoming for IPv6 over two
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
effective and much simpler.
I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast
link and I don't think they're going to be able to do
On 4/7/11 7:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
honto???
your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on.
On 4/7/11 8:13 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
There is no need for NAT in order to multiple-home. BGP is every bit as
effective and much simpler.
I know a lot of small businesses with one FiOS link and one Comcast
link and I
Otherwise some kind of routing must be implemented on hosts.
Some kind of routing is already implemented on hosts.
honto???
your mobile phone is multihomed, as is this laptop I'm typing on.
routing != multihomed
try rfc 1812
randy
52 matches
Mail list logo
