LISP vs. IRON vs. BGP (was Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?)

Thu Aug 23 16:03:59 UTC 2012

On 8/7/12 10:50 AM, Wes Felter wrote:

>> The goal here was to make this as simple and cost-effective as the NAT-based
>> IPv4 solution currently in common use. There's no reason it can't be exactly that.
>>
>> It does provide advantages over the NAT-based solution (sessions can survive
>> failover).

> What do people think about Fred Templin's IRON multihomed tunneling
> approach (or LISP, I guess it can do it)? IRON should give you
> multihoming with stable IPv4 and IPv6 PA prefixes, even for incoming
> traffic. It's less reliable than BGP in theory since you'd be virtually
> single-homed to your IRON provider but that might be a worthwhile
> tradeoff since staying up is pretty much their purpose in life.

> You'd have to pay a third provider to terminate your tunnels, but that
> might be cheaper than paying an extra BGP tax to both of your physical
> providers. IRON appears to require much less configuration than BGP and
> it can also provide IPv6 over v4-only providers (good luck finding *two*
> broadband providers in the same location that provide IPv6 and BGP).

> --
> Wes Felter
> IBM Research - Austin

IRON looks interesting.  I will look at that in more depth.  We provide true multi-homing across providers (usually what we find most people mean when they say BGP) and v6 to the home via LISP. The traffic can be configured for load sharing across links or as an active/passive configuration.  We announce the aggregates into the DFZ.

Paul Vinciguerra
CCIE 10291
[Description: cid:A37A812F-9283-4165-9459-FA9025300523]
120 W Park Avenue, Suite 308
Long Beach, NY 11561
P: 516-977-2095  *  F: 516-977-2482  *  TF: 866-998-4624
vinciconsulting.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14315 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120823/07e4a467/attachment.png>