Re: [RAM] ViP: Anycast ITRs in the DFZ & mobile tunnels

[Markus Stenberg <mstenber at cisco.com>]

Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com> writes:
>> Christian, I think you understand what I am trying to say.  It is
>> not very complex and I don't expect it is very novel.  But since I
>> couldn't think of anything which does exactly this, I wrote it up.
> But you require your address to be routeable all the time. If a site
> requests Provider Independent (PI) addresses, your proposal requires
> them to be routed in the core.
>
> That will not reduce the size of the routing tables.

It does to a degree; if significant chunk of the PI space suddenly pointed
to anycast-ITR of 'the other routing system' (whether you want to call it
LISP or VIP, is academic), it could be aggregated and _not_ have any churn
in it within the normal routing system.

Of course, the question of whether or not the shifting of the routing load
elsewhere really accomplishes anything is still there, but I thought that
was the assumption with the LISP too? 

Cheers,

-Markus

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