Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?

Fri Dec 10 14:56:46 UTC 2010

On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:30 , Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com at nanog.org  Wed Dec  8 15:36:44 2010
>> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:34:47 -0600
>> From: Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net>
>> To: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
>> Subject: Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
>> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
>> 
>> On 12/8/2010 3:12 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> Cameron,
>>> 
>>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>>> I believe a lot of folks think the routing paths should be tightly
>>>> coupled with the physical topology.
>>> 
>>> The downside, of course, being that if you change your location
>>> within the physical topology, you have to renumber.  Enterprises have
>>> already voted with their feet that this isn't acceptable with IPv4
>>> and they'll no doubt do the same with IPv6.
>>> 
>>>> In a mature IPv6 world, that is sane, i am not sure what the real
>>>> value of LISP is.
>>> 
>>> Sanity is in the eye of the beholder.  The advantage a LISP(-like)
>>> scheme provides is a way of separating location from identity,
>>> allowing for arbitrary topology change (and complexity in the form of
>>> multi-homing) without affecting the identities of the systems on the
>>> network. Changing providers or multi-homing would thus not result in
>>> a renumbering event or pushing yet another prefix into the DFZ.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think the issue, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that LISP does not 
>> address issues of traffic engineering? A lot of the additional routes in 
>> DFZ are there specifically to handle traffic engineering.
> 

LISP has TE properties based on priority of the locators and weight (for load balancing).

You can read:

http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/system/files/inm08.pdf

Luigi

> The primary thing that a LISP-like approach accomplishes is the 'de-coupling"
> of infrastructure and leaf networks.  You can mess with either one, w/o
> having any effect on the other.
> 

> 
> 