[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
ID/loc mapping distribution protocol (was Re: [RAM] Incremental Deployment of LISP
El 08/04/2007, a las 4:37, Dino Farinacci escribió:
You are right non Marcelo. I think taking the high-road by doing a
LISP-push model gives you the best of all worlds.
by push model, we are talking about destributing the ID to locator
mapping database to all LISP routers?
I would say all high-level routers
i am not sure what do you mean by high level router... could you expand?
and not to every LISP ITR (or ETR).
but the ITR are the ones than need the information (hence the ones that
should have it), right?
Of course, in addition, routers making TE would also benefit from it,
so it makes sense to pass it to them also (but they are ITRs after all,
right?)
are you thinking in using a protocol for that distribution, like BGP
for instance?
A new protocol more optimized perhaps for flooding that has
authentication built-in.
what is the motivation for a new protocol?
i mean, BGP does seem to provide what is needed, and it is well known
by the community
do you think that BGP is lacking some of the required capabilities?
note that for globally distributing the ID to locator mapping
information, you would just need to enable another instance of BGP with
maybe some extensions, that would carry the id to loc mapping to all
the routers running this new instance. I think that from a deployment
perspective, this is much better than designing a new protocol, since
it would only require configure existent routers (maybe some software
patch) but not deploying a new protocol (I think this would go along
with the general LISP policy of minor changes rather than new
protocols, doesn't it?)
There have been a few proposals on this area before, which were very
interesting imho, but i guess some people though they were too
complex
We can start simple. This doesn't need to be complex and if we keep
policy out of it ;-) we can keep it easier
but probably the complex part of policy is to provide enough
information and flexibility to allow for local configurations, so this
needs to be build in the protocol from scratch, just as BGP has it.
. Please note, this protocol would be there to distribute EID-RLOC
mappings and not the reachability status of the RLOCs.
of course, fully agree
Dino
_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram