Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Luigi Iannone luigi at net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de
Mon Apr 11 08:30:32 CDT 2011


On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:

[snip]
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 

Sorry. I misunderstood. 

But can you explain better? Why should LISP require more IP space than normal IPv4 deployment?

If you are a new site, you ask for an IP block. This is independent from whether or not you will use LISP.

If you are an existing site and you want to switch to LISP why you need more space? you can re-use what you have?

Or I missed the point again?

thanks 

Luigi



> Owen
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list