Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 11 08:17:30 CDT 2011


On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
Who said anything about BGP? I was talking about the amount of additional IP space needed vs. the
amount of IPv4 free space remaining.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list