IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Thu, 09 April 2015 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <darlewis@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D861B2FF6 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5848HrvmTUg for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E66C1B3029 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=799; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428601922; x=1429811522; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=/d0XieBNrl9Ct5EwlQjaxuTyp9v8emGzf3OhzEx2E7E=; b=O00W1YHo3qKd2SOfgh+WqpA+Rhc0p+15z5zasxuHRD3xKFzVDWNaMDuW wSeQW8e6INHmqaKS6OaLiXsjsoXk9kCasnb4f7Bl8ok040PDTCgl6oe8J ET6UJ0qpJl1R9Em/fYzyVtkeXvRb4zJJuS1DXNWCu1aIs9H8iDt+VzKLC Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AKBQD4uyZV/4gNJK1cgwiBLgXMGwKBREwBAQEBAQF+hCABAQMBOj8FCwIBCA4oEDIlAgQOBYgiCM5OAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmLK4QYMTMHgxeBFgEEkHqGI4NoAZRkIoNvb4FEfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,551,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="2712610"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2015 17:51:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t39HpalL017424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 17:51:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.199]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:51:36 -0500
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01
Thread-Index: AQHQcu3SdjsnEc/tuUqtILM8nKwJ+A==
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:51:36 +0000
Message-ID: <E0766E5C-8CCB-4523-85B6-540126925B78@cisco.com>
References: <B339BFE7-7E19-4AAA-8B2C-276402024C74@gigix.net> <BY1PR0501MB14304477BFF1F86BAFC810B3A5F50@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5518A89C.3090108@joelhalpern.com> <BY1PR0501MB14306D728BC2F0CAE037DE58A5F50@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5C76220B-7DC6-46B9-8C57-A30D977FA7C8@gmail.com> <BY1PR0501MB1430FCF009B4994C006EB3A4A5FB0@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0501MB1430FCF009B4994C006EB3A4A5FB0@BY1PR0501MB1430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.253.185]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7AFB83C1A82E804886909AFBDEEC3204@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JrUVYqAaLjzdYxesafHjhgAqTVU>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lisp-impact@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lisp-impact@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] WG Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-impact-01
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 17:52:23 -0000

On Apr 8, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> wrote:

> My understanding of this is that what some service providers do today is to announce some more specific prefixes (that match a PA prefix assigned to them) at some interconnection points and some different more specific prefixes at other interconnection points in order to draw in traffic where they want to draw it in. If with LISP you were to map all of these prefixes in one mapping table entry then you would be mapping them all to the same RLOC (or set of RLOCs). 


This is not correct, there is no requirement for an ETR to provide the same answer to one requesting ITR as it does another.  Quite the opposite, replies can be customized depending on many possible variables.

-Darrel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email