nanog mailing list archives
Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:08:43 +0100
On 8 dec 2010, at 20:10, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Do you think adopting LISP or similar architectures to reduce the problems mentioned above?
Did the LISP guys solve failover after a locator goes away? And what about the MTU issue? Do you lose initial packets when there is no mapping state yet? (It's been a couple of years since I was current on the RRG stuff and LISP.)
Current thread:
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?, (continued)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? David Conrad (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Jack Bates (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Kevin Oberman (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Owen DeLong (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Jack Bates (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Owen DeLong (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? James Hess (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Owen DeLong (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Jack Bates (Dec 09)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? LorĂ¡nd Jakab (Dec 09)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? David Conrad (Dec 08)
- Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Jeff Wheeler (Dec 08)
- RE: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? George Bonser (Dec 08)
- Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes? Luigi Iannone (Dec 10)