Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP
Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Sat, 13 February 2010 23:33 UTC
Return-Path: <dino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458983A7A3D for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:33:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 27Pbr9sEwG6t for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:33:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD0A3A7A3C for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:33:57 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,469,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="482730220"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2010 23:35:21 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.127] (sjc-vpn4-1276.cisco.com [10.21.84.251]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1DNZLJw019923; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:35:21 GMT
Message-Id: <D9CD155C-AEDA-4A07-99E0-8CD624137DDD@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B7730DB.4070106@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:35:21 -0800
References: <20E2830D-6BB4-4D0A-A788-4B3DE274CE5E@cs.ucla.edu> <4B7730DB.4070106@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:33:58 -0000
>> LISP is currently working through NAT boxes, but only in limited >> configurations. In particular, due to the use of fixed UDP ports, >> it is not >> currently possible to support more than one ETR behind a NAT box. > > I've not been following LISP-NAT well enough to know if the above > statement holds true, but I will say that this is the sort of > specific statement that can at least be tested, challenged, agreed > to, etc. FYI, LISP-NAT and LISP NAT-traversal are two different features. I want to clear that up. LISP-NAT is a way a doing non-LISP site to LISP- site interworking by translated a non-routable address (an EID) so packets can return to a LISP site from a non-LISP site. LISP NAT-traversal is used when a LISP router is behind a traditional NAT box or is co-located with a traditional NAT box. The use-case here is when the LISP-site uses private addresses. Dino
- [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Lixia Zhang
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Eliot Lear
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Dino Farinacci
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Dino Farinacci
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP - 745 words Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Templin, Fred L
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] A Revised critique for LISP Robin Whittle