Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 06:17:30 -0700

On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:

On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote:

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders <job () instituut net> wrote:

Dear All,

On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:

On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

LISP can also be a good option. Comes with slightly more overhead in terms of
encapsulation/etc. than the GRE tunnels I use and has limited (if any) functionality
for IPv4 (which GRE supports nicely).

Maybe you meant ILNP here? AFAIK, IPv4 and IPv6 are equal citizens for LISP.

Comparing GRE with LISP is like comparing /etc/hosts with the global DNS system. ;-)

I don't understand the comments about LISP and IPv4. IPv4 works just excellent with LISP. I have a IPv4 block at 
home which I multi-home over my IPv6-only DSL and IPv4-only FTTH line. 

LISP is pretty address family agnostic: IPv4 over IPv4, IPv4 over IPv6, IPv6 over IPv4, IPv6 over IPv6, all work 
without problems. 

Kind regards,


Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so 
practical to me.

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.

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.


Who said anything about BGP? I was talking about the amount of additional IP space needed vs. the
amount of IPv4 free space remaining.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]