Re: Implementations/suggestions for Multihoming IPv6 for DSL sites

[Luigi Iannone <luigi () net t-labs tu-berlin de>]

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 () 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


> Owen