Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Mon, 21 September 2009 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <darlewis@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7FB3A67AE for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D3C06Tb1zstO for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8F53A6AD7 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEADect0qrR7PD/2dsb2JhbAC7OohQAY5xBYQbiwI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,426,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="393173557"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2009 22:34:26 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8LMYQIA024453; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:26 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8LMYQkx005149; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:34:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.153]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:26 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:27 -0700
Message-ID: <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A15D0C1A@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090921223054.E981C6BE62F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
Thread-Index: Aco7Cy/WTyiE8Aq0QHS6X5UfPfL3TAAAGNsQ
References: <20090921223054.E981C6BE62F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, lisp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2009 22:34:26.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACD91F70:01CA3B0B]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=393; t=1253572466; x=1254436466; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=darlewis@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Darrel=20Lewis=20(darlewis)=22=20<darlewis@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[lisp]=20LISP=20Interworking=3A=20=20Pr oxy=20Egress=20Tunnel=20Routers |Sender:=20; bh=SW238Wz/UJAUmSLHLSwqPe80EkKzXDM+tqD7aV6rl80=; b=YkRn+g+tYyQcmL95Yg3XEPVi1gn6STfpcGtoYmiFQhSzQoAAgRnBmnsxXH U5XekQfceDOwzweOkn+u1zh9xtZX2O4EsnOQvA1TfoAM6tBx6hLbXodE6e6d XDcs0gCYyQ;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=darlewis@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:33:25 -0000

> 
>     > From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
> 
>     > C) they use LISP-NAT
>     > ...
>     > This is not correct, NAT is always an option.
> 
> Well, don't I feel like a total idiot. So much for my proof 
> we need PETRs.
> Oh well!
> 

Well, I personally prefer both Proxy ITRs and Proxy ETRs to NAT, but
your mileage may vary! :-)

-Darrel