Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 18 15:09:11 CDT 2011


On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

> 2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski <lukasz at bromirski.net>:
>> LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
>> prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
>> withdraw the original aggregate prefix. And as no matter how
>> you count it, the number of *locations* will be somewhat
>> limited vs number of *PI* address spaces that everyone wants
> 
> I strongly disagree with the assumption that the number of
> locations/sites would remain static.  This is the basic issue that
> many folks gloss over: dramatically decreasing the barrier-to-entry
> for multi-homing or provider-independent addressing will, without
> question, dramatically increase the number of multi-homed or
> provider-independent sites.
> 
Done properly, a multi-homed end-site does not need to have
its own locator ID, but, could, instead, use the locator IDs of
all directly proximate Transit ASNs.

I don't know if LISP particularly facilitates this, but, I think it
would be possible generically in a Locator/ID based system.

> LISP "solves" this problem by using the router's FIB as a
> macro-flow-cache.  That's good except that a site with a large number
> of outgoing macro-flows (either because it's a busy site, responding
> to an external DoS attack, or actually originating a DoS attack from a
> compromised host) will cripple that site's ITR.
> 
The closer you move the ITRs to the edge, the less of an issue this becomes.
> 

Owen






More information about the NANOG mailing list