[157477] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IRON vs. BGP (was Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Tue Oct 23 16:20:16 2012
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0DFE4ACC@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:20:02 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: Wes Felter <wmf@felter.org>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Templin, Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> I realize that this is reaching way back, but you may want
> to have a look at the latest version of IRON:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-templin-ironbis-12.txt
>
> IRON manages the internal routing systems for large virtual
> service provider networks. It deals with deaggregation and
> churn due to mobility internally, and does not expose the
> deaggregation and churn to the interdomain routing system.
>
> IRON is therefore an intradomain routing overlay network
> system, and can be used in conjunction with any interdomain
> routing system - including BGP and LISP.
someone should have brought this up in the ARMD working group...
