[161607] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table go boom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Wed Mar 20 23:15:29 2013
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:07:25 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVrQZCRFZGteOmFk_-nNM=aasqUT33KE+JLZ5z2yBZFQw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
William Herrin wrote:
>>> Some local system is responsible for detecting connectivity between
>>> the ETR and destination and updating the destination-to-ETR map
>>> accordingly.
>>
>> Some local system?
>
> Yeah, you know, like OSPF or EIGRP. Just like exporting a route from
> the IGP to the EGP except that you're exporting a route from the IGP
> to the LISP map instead.
You assume an end user's network exchange route with its ISP.
Though it causes a lot of problems, OK.
Even then, that a route from an ETR of an ISP to an end system
in end user's network is blackholed means that a routing
protocol tells the ETR that there is a route to the end system.
Masataka Ohta
