mailing list archives
Re: [Nanog] Re: LISP
From: Lori Jakab <ljakab () ac upc edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:15:15 +0200
On 04/12/2011 02:12 AM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:02 AM, harbor235 wrote:
This sounds a lot like LNP in the telco world. Is the goal here to
make IP's "portable" ?
One of the goals, yes.
Or is this a viable way to access IPv6 from either an IPv4 host or an
IPv6 host unfortunate enough to not have full IPv6 tables?
LISP will not do translation for you, so an IPv6-only host will not be
able to talk to an IPv4-only host by just using LISP. However, solving
the problem of not having full IPv6 tables is possible in two ways: 1)
you use IPv4 locators so basically tunnel the traffic over IPv4; or 2)
use a proxy tunnel router that does have access to full IPv6 tables.
And do all of the networks you pass through have to be LISP enabled?
Ideally, the source and destination networks both have to be LISP
enabled, the core doesn't have to know anything about LISP. It is
however possible for LISP enabled sites to communicate with sites not
deploying LISP, using proxy tunnel routers deployed by third parties.
For more discussion about how this might be deployed see Section 4 of
the LISP deployment document:
UPC Advanced Broadband Communications Center
- LISP Christina Klam (Apr 11)