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, 18 Apr 2011 13:09:11 -0700


On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski <lukasz () bromirski net>:
LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how
you count it, the number of *locations* will be somewhat
limited vs number of *PI* address spaces that everyone wants

I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of
locations/sites would remain static.  This is the basic issue that
many folks gloss over: dramatically decreasing the barrier-to-entry
for multi-homing or provider-independent addressing will, without
question, dramatically increase the number of multi-homed or
provider-independent sites.

Done properly, a multi-homed end-site does not need to have
its own locator ID, but, could, instead, use the locator IDs of
all directly proximate Transit ASNs.

I don't know if LISP particularly facilitates this, but, I think it
would be possible generically in a Locator/ID based system.

LISP "solves" this problem by using the router's FIB as a
macro-flow-cache.  That's good except that a site with a large number
of outgoing macro-flows (either because it's a busy site, responding
to an external DoS attack, or actually originating a DoS attack from a
compromised host) will cripple that site's ITR.

The closer you move the ITRs to the edge, the less of an issue this becomes.


Owen




  By Date           By Thread  

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