[139470] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Apr 9 10:03:31 2011
In-Reply-To: <58B0B53C-39B1-4D8B-BAB2-C791D5DE5D9C@instituut.net>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 07:00:18 -0700
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
> Dear All,
>=20
> On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
>=20
>> On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>>> LISP can also be a good option. Comes with slightly more overhead in ter=
ms of
>>> encapsulation/etc. than the GRE tunnels I use and has limited (if any) f=
unctionality
>>> for IPv4 (which GRE supports nicely).
>>=20
>> Maybe you meant ILNP here? AFAIK, IPv4 and IPv6 are equal citizens for LI=
SP.
>=20
> Comparing GRE with LISP is like comparing /etc/hosts with the global DNS s=
ystem. ;-)
>=20
> I don't understand the comments about LISP and IPv4. IPv4 works just excel=
lent with LISP. I have a IPv4 block at home which I multi-home over my IPv6-=
only DSL and IPv4-only FTTH line.=20
>=20
> LISP is pretty address family agnostic: IPv4 over IPv4, IPv4 over IPv6, IP=
v6 over IPv4, IPv6 over IPv6, all work without problems.=20
>=20
> Kind regards,
>=20
> Job
Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional prefixe=
s which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
Owen
