[139498] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Luigi Iannone)
Mon Apr 11 09:30:38 2011
From: Luigi Iannone <luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <61FCD6EF-FB57-4835-980D-4BF0CB1F32D7@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:30:32 +0200
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
>>>=20
>>> Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional =
prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
>>=20
>> This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in the BGP is needed =
only to make non-LISP sites talk to LISP sites. Even there you can =
aggressively aggregate, as explained in draft-ietf-lisp-interworking.
>>=20
>> As long as the LISP deployment progress you can even withdraw some =
prefixes from the BGP infrastructure and advertise only a larger =
aggregate in order for legacy site to reach the new LISP site.
>>=20
>> Luigi
>>=20
> Who said anything about BGP? I was talking about the amount of =
additional IP space needed vs. the
> amount of IPv4 free space remaining.
>=20
Sorry. I misunderstood.=20
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.
If you are an existing site and you want to switch to LISP why you need =
more space? you can re-use what you have?
Or I missed the point again?
thanks=20
Luigi
> Owen
>=20
