[153403] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New routing systems (Was: IPv6 day and tunnels)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Tue Jun 5 17:13:23 2012
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:12:10 -0700
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BEEAEC30-7E65-4DFC-BE0C-053BE2E2B0CA@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2012-06-05 11:44, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
> LISP et. al requires a rather complicated deployment and would be even
> more complex to troubleshoot when it fails.
>
> What I am proposing could, literally, be deployed with the existing system
> still running as it does. The difference would be that for packets containing
> a dest-as field, we would (initially) have the option of routing to destination
> based on that field and ignoring the prefix.
I would love to see a more formal specification ala a IETF draft about
it and/or a short preso style thing along with a comparison of existing
proposals and how this is different/better.
> What I am proposing, however, requires us to add fields to the packet
> header (at the source)
Well, we have IPv6 extension headers and the flow-label is still
undefined too ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
