Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Luigi Iannone luigi at net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de
Mon Apr 11 07:12:39 CDT 2011


On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
>> 
>>> On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>>> LISP can also be a good option. Comes with slightly more overhead in terms of
>>>> encapsulation/etc. than the GRE tunnels I use and has limited (if any) functionality
>>>> for IPv4 (which GRE supports nicely).
>>> 
>>> Maybe you meant ILNP here? AFAIK, IPv4 and IPv6 are equal citizens for LISP.
>> 
>> Comparing GRE with LISP is like comparing /etc/hosts with the global DNS system. ;-)
>> 
>> I don't understand the comments about LISP and IPv4. IPv4 works just excellent with LISP. I have a IPv4 block at home which I multi-home over my IPv6-only DSL and IPv4-only FTTH line. 
>> 
>> LISP is pretty address family agnostic: IPv4 over IPv4, IPv4 over IPv6, IPv6 over IPv4, IPv6 over IPv6, all work without problems. 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Job
> 
> Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.

This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in the BGP is needed only to make non-LISP sites talk to LISP sites. Even there you can aggressively aggregate, as explained in draft-ietf-lisp-interworking.

As long as the LISP deployment progress you can even withdraw some prefixes from the BGP infrastructure and advertise only a larger aggregate in order for legacy site to reach the new LISP site.

Luigi


> 
> Owen
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list