Hi,
On 20 Mar. 2013, at 06:40 , Masataka Ohta
wrote:
[snip]
>
> Then, how can an ITR, which initially choose a blackholed
> locator, know that the locator is not working and fall
> back to another locator?
In LISP you can check reachability with the echo-nonce function.
[snip]
>
> PS
>
>
On 20 Mar. 2013, at 01:05 , Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
>> It is always amusing to see people allude to the end-to-end
>> principle to support their arguments, when in fact the
>> end-to-end principle is either inapplicable to the topic
>> at hand, or actually lends support
Hi Masataka,
On 20 Mar. 2013, at 00:23 , Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> David Conrad wrote:
>
>> One of the advantages I see in LISP(-like) solutions is that it
>> allows multi-homing without having to do BGP...
>
> By having a lot larger table than BGP.
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iet
On Jul 13, 2011, at 13:03 , Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> on one point we agree, there is value in continuing this thread.
There is _no_ value.
my mistake...
Luigi
> I've tried to bring the discussion back to the technical issues, but I failed.
>
> Persona
aders, but as it is basically what seems to go on a lot, from my
> observations of IETF list activity, I'll copy my reply to the list as
> you have done.
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Luigi Iannone
> wrote:
>> Granted. You are the real world expert. Now can you sto
ot like it? Fine, other people do.
You do not believe in it and do not see any value? Fine, other people do.
You think that there are issues that cannot be solved? Fine, other people
believe those issues can be solved and are scratching their head to find
deployable solutions.
As I said before, your technical experience and feedback is the most welcome,
but let's try to focus only on the technical level.
thanks
Luigi Iannone
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> Any edges which talk to a significant number of other networks will
> have to cache a significant portion of the Internet, which will
> actually lead to edge boxes having to be larger than they are now.
>
This is not accurate. For networks wi
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>
>> 2011/4/18 Lukasz Bromirski :
>>> LISP scales better, because with introduction of *location*
>>> prefix, you're at the same time (or ideally you would)
>>> withdraw the original a
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 23:53 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I do tend to think that any technology sufficiently confusing that I cannot
>> understand it well after reasonable effort is of questionable value
>> for wide deployment.
>
> The secret is
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 17:26 , Owen DeLong wrote:
But can you explain better? Why should LISP require more IP space than
normal IPv4 deployment?
If you are a new site, you ask for an IP block. This is independent from
whether or not you will use LISP.
>>> Sur
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:37 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:30 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale req
Hi,
I think that the best repository of documentation is lisp4.net.
I would also have a look to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jakab-lisp-deployment/
Luigi
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 16:49 , Christina Klam wrote:
> All,
>
> One of our ISP is planning to do a LISP deployment. (1) Does anyo
On 11, Apr, 2011, at 15:17 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> Doing IPv4 LISP on any kind of scale requires significant additional
>>> prefixes which at this time doesn't seem so practical to me.
>>
>> This is not accurate IMO. To inject prefixes in the BGP is needed only to
>> make non-LISP
On 9, Apr, 2011, at 16:00 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:31 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2011, at 19:34, Lori Jakab wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2011 06:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
LISP can also be a good option. Comes with s
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into
>> IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough
>> practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which
>> will no longer be kept in ch
On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:30 , Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Wed Dec 8 15:36:44
>> 2010
>> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:34:47 -0600
>> From: Jack Bates
>> To: David Conrad
>> Subject: Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
>> Cc: NANOG
On Sep 30, 2010, at 17:15 , Job W. J. Snijders wrote:
> Dear Cameron & everybody,
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Job W. J. Snijders
> wrote:
>
The fact that LISP does help in IPv6 Transition solutions (due to its
inherent AF agnostic design), is compelling. As you say, real en
I recently came across NetKit that seems to offer what you are looking for...
http://wiki.netkit.org/index.php/Main_Page
L.
On Jun 28, 2010, at 12:32 , Lynchehaun, Patrick (Patrick) wrote:
>
> You could use load sbgp/mrtd script to load route dumps. There is also
> bgpsimple http://code.goo
In Germany was down as well, but now works fine again.
Luigi
On Feb 24, 2009, at 13:16 , Sarunas Vancevicius wrote:
The web interface is down in Ireland too.
But IMAP access is working fine.
On 12:12, Tue 24 Feb 09, Tobias Bartholdi wrote:
yup, down in switzerland too...
-Original Messa
19 matches
Mail list logo
