IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RAM] ViP: Anycast ITRs in the DFZ & mobile tunnels

Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com> Fri, 15 June 2007 07:38 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hz6Nd-0006bp-O0; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:38:01 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hz6Nb-0006bF-T0 for ram@iab.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:37:59 -0400
Received: from n2.nomadiclab.com ([193.234.219.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hz6Na-0004Aj-K8 for ram@iab.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:37:59 -0400
Received: from n2.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n2.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB323212E66; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:37:56 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n2.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAF1212DF2; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:37:56 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <467241D7.7070800@nomadiclab.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:37:59 +0300
From: Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RAM] ViP: Anycast ITRs in the DFZ & mobile tunnels
References: <46720DED.9090608@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <46720DED.9090608@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

Robin,

is it correct to say that ViP anchors an access (or edge) network's
prefix at the V-router somewhere within the DFZ?

In this case, I would see a difference between ViP and LISP in terms of
responsibilities:

- In ViP, it is the responsibility of the destination access network
  to set up (or subscribe to) the anchor router for its prefix.

- LISP relies on a router in (or at the border of) the source access
  network to perform this functionality.

This ViP concept reminds me of Mobile IP (v4 or v6), where a mobile host
anchors its home network prefix with a home agent, the location of which
is independent of the peer that the mobile host communicates with.  Both
ViP and Mobile IP use tunneling between the anchor and the destination.

In fact, ViP is a proposal for network mobility.  It enables an access
network to change ISPs (which is nothing else but a topological
"movement") without losing reachability via the original prefix.

Interesting...

- Christian




_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email