[rrg] Where IRON fits in

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 06 December 2012 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3579521F87D1 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QYmd2nGNR0WD for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E40A21F8797 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id qB603JUI010643 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:19 -0800
Received: from XCH-NWHT-09.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-09.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.115]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id qB603JHs010617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:19 -0800
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-09.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.115]) with mapi; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:18 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "rrg@irtf.org" <rrg@irtf.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:03:18 -0800
Thread-Topic: Where IRON fits in
Thread-Index: Ac3TDo7189972t4cTtqBxbzYBdg/iQANSXgg
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65E0ED01C32@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMBJBxNJ_M1_L=K0f2DpbZvzOBUgLZ6sT+-y+JevGeSg@mail.gmail.com> <27E72BC2-C84D-469F-9667-7A749567B477@tony.li> <09cc01cdc173$71323cd0$5396b670$@huitema.net> <03E5ABD7-EA3C-4C69-B3F9-16C8B6C6E512@tony.li> <50BE3EEB.20700@internet2.edu> <F502F124-32EC-40B9-9C3F-4E2DF5337B62@tony.li> <0d9601cdd2c2$57d22290$077667b0$@huitema.net> <2C77A48B-9A7D-4E02-B4F3-987E0AFC83F8@tony.li> <50BF8530.9010102@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50BF8530.9010102@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Subject: [rrg] Where IRON fits in
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:03:21 -0000

Good to see some activity on this list - I think?

A couple of posts have mentioned IRON, and that work did indeed
originate from this group. However, I have come to the realization
that IRON is really an interior routing solution and not an
Internetworking solution.

In particular, IRON does not use tunneling between the routers
of separate sites across the DFZ the way LISP does; it only uses
tunneling *within* a site, even if that "site" is distributed
across the global Internet.

Where IRON adds value is that it manages mobility and multi-homing
within the site without exposing de-aggregated prefixes to BGP.
The IRON relays can therefore advertise only a few short prefixes
into the BGP instead of lots of long prefixes.

I therefore think IRON is complimentary to either of LISP or ILNP.
It's just that IRON does well for "sites" that are geographically
distributed and/or have lots of mobility internally.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com