RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 20 July 2007 14:29 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 1IBtTm-0003a6-W0; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:29:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBtTl-0003a1-6s
for ram@iab.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:29:13 -0400
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.64.48])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBtTk-000057-Hi
for ram@iab.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:29:13 -0400
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6])
by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with
ESMTP id l6KET26Z011538
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL);
Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id
l6KET1EM009506; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:29:01 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com
[130.247.55.84])
by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id
l6KESceB008857; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:29:01 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by
XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:29:00 -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
Subject: RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:29:00 -0700
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029ED929@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <46A00C2F.1030401@firstpr.com.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared
Thread-Index: AcfKazITZjUHbmtESf+p5lE+TbpiKwAbllVA
References: <469C962B.1090600@firstpr.com.au> <469DBFA0.7010103@cisco.com> <469DEB91.1000805@firstpr.com.au> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029ED91C@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <469E976A.5060804@firstpr.com.au>
<39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029ED924@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<46A00C2F.1030401@firstpr.com.au>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Robin Whittle" <rw@firstpr.com.au>, <ram@iab.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2007 14:29:00.0596 (UTC)
FILETIME=[50858F40:01C7CADA]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87
Cc:
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, Only follow-up for now is that IPvLX does anticipate support for multihomed sites. Sites that are multihomed can publish multiple ETR RLOCs in the mapping service, and ITRs can use any/all of the available RLOCs for TE or fault tolerance purposes. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Whittle [mailto:rw@firstpr.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:13 PM > To: ram@iab.org > Cc: Templin, Fred L > Subject: Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared > > Thanks Fred for clarifying my understanding of IPvLX. > > I understand now that it is to support IPv6 user traffic over IPv4 > networks, with the aim of encouraging IPv6 adoption and without (I > think) further burdening the global BGP routing tables for either > IPv4 or IPv6. > > You wrote, in part: > > >> How does IPvLX handle the requirement that a multihoming system > >> short-term changes to traffic flow? I think service restoration > >> for a multihomed link is an example of what Eliot called > >> "operational state"? This is an important aspect of architectural > >> goals in which Ivip differs completely from LISP or eFIT-APT. > > > > I didn't understand this. > > The primary goal of LISP, eFIT-APT and Ivip is to work with IPv4 > traffic over the IPv4 routing system - or IPv6 traffic over the > IPv6 routing system - and in both cases to enable end-users to > achieve multihoming without having to advertise their address > space as a separate BGP prefix, and therefore without requiring > any change to BGP advertisements when their link from ISP A goes > down and they need their packets to come in via a link from ISP B. > > Ivip enables the user to achieve multihoming service restoration > via fast database updates, driven by a user-provided mechanism, > whereas LISP and eFIT-APT have slower database distribution > systems and have the service restoration function built in to > their ITRs, ETRs etc. > > I now realise that your proposal doesn't mention "multihoming". > This, and the fact that your proposal is only for IPv6 user > traffic, means that it is trying to solve different problems from > those which LISP, eFIT-APT and Ivip are trying to tackle. > > > >> Ivip more closely follows what I think is a common IETF > >> philosophy: single function, open-ended, building blocks which can > >> be used in combination with other building blocks to solve a wide > >> variety of problems, without having to create a monolithic system > >> for each particular problem. (I don't know of a formal statement > >> of this, but it is evident from the whole nature of TCP/IP design, > >> DNS, HTTP etc.) > > > > I don't see any questions regarding IPvLX in this. > > OK - I was still discussing the differences between Ivip and the > other proposals' approach to multihoming service restoration. > > > >> Assuming IPvLX helps with ordinary IPv4 communications, it would > >> be great if you could explain on this list how IPvLX would be > >> deployed: > >> > >> Give a fully detailed example of the BGP or other benefits it > >> brings to IPv4, > > > > The benefits to IPv4 are that it encourages new growth in > > IPv6 instead of IPv4. > > I think any system which makes IPv6 easier to adopt, in a scalable > manner, is a good idea. I don't know enough about IPv6 and the > various approaches such as 6to4 to be able to fully discern how > IPvLX, Teredo, 6to4 and others compare in terms of scalability and > functionality. > > Perhaps if you wrote something comparing the long-term scaling and > interoperability of these three systems, and any others which are > relevant, this would help me and others through this complex set > of issues. > > I have added links to your message and this discussion from the > page where I am maintaining an updated copy of my comparison: > > http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/comp/#IPvLX > > > - Robin > > _______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM@iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
- [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Templin, Fred L
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Eliot Lear
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Templin, Fred L
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Templin, Fred L
- RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Templin, Fred L
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Dino Farinacci
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- RE: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Templin, Fred L
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Dino Farinacci
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Dino Farinacci
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Dino Farinacci
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Dan Jen
- Re: [RAM] LISP NERD/CONS, eFIT-APT & Ivip compared Robin Whittle