[139526] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cameron Byrne)
Mon Apr 11 13:09:27 2011
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikTr1keLBbi4wcoVtzXhNTZ7i8kTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:09:20 -0700
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact I keep thinking I just abo=
ut 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 existing multi-homing practices
> as falling into one of three broad categories:
> 1) more state in DFZ -- end-site injects a route into BGP
>
> 2) triangular routing -- tunnel/circuits/etc to one or more upstream
> routers while not injecting anything to DFZ
>
> 3) added work/complexity on end-host -- SCTP and friends
>
> LISP is a compromise of all these things, except #3 happens on a
> router which does tunneling, not the end-host. =A0Whether you think it's
> "the best of both [three?] worlds," or the worst of them, is up to
> you.
>
> I personally believe LISP is a horrible idea that will have trouble
Yep.
> scaling up, because a large table of LISP mappings is not any easier
> to store in FIB than a larger DFZ. =A0The "solution" the LISP folks
> think works for this is a side-chain mapping service which the router
> can query to setup encapsulation next-hops on-demand, which means if
> your FIB isn't big enough to hold every mapping entry, you are
> essentially doing flow-based routing, but with "flows" defined as
> being toward a remotely-defined end-site rather than toward an
> individual IP address (so not quite as bad as "flow-based routing" of
> the past, but still bad.)
>
> Maybe I also don't understand LISP and need to RTFM more, but my
> current understanding is that it is a dead-end technology without the
> ability to dramatically scale up the number of multi-homed end-sites
> in a cheaper manner than what is done today with BGP.
>
> I think we would be better off with more work on things like SCTP.
>
+1 SCTP and IPv6, then ILNP.
> --
> Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
> Sr Network Operator=A0 /=A0 Innovative Network Concepts
>
>
