Re: [RAM] Incremental Deployment of LISP

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

> > > This would be an good example to illustrate that LISP 1.5 offer
> > > *no* reduction of the volume of routing information.  To the  
> > > contrary,
> > > this example would illustrate how LISP 1.5 would result in  
> > > increasing
> > > volume of routing information.
> >
> > It reduces the unicast FIB.
>
> Any *empirical* evidences to support the above claim would be greatly
> appreciated.

The point is that the PI prefixes which are in the core today can be  
removed because they will be routed on another, smaller topology, to  
be used to probe for locator replies.

So there is evidence that if you use the "no network <prefix>"  
command in BGP, the neighbor router does not store <prefix> in it's  
RIB or FIB. Therefore there is a reduction.

> > > This would be an good example to illustrate that LISP 1.5 offer
> > > *no* reduction of the volume of routing information.  To the  
> > > contrary,
> > > this example would illustrate how LISP 1.5 would result in  
> > > increasing
> > > volume of routing information.
> >
> > It reduces the unicast FIB.
>
> Does that mean that the size of RIB is not a problem ?

Less is always better from many perspectives.

Dino

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram