Subject: Re: [lisp] EID allocation / ALT base

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:24:21 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>

    > I see some land mines hidden in this space that could cause serious
    > problems at the point where this starts to matter. (As a small
    > experiment, it just works.)

Indeed - and if LISP does become fairly widely deployed, and one wants to do
some other things with it (e.g. decrease routing table sizes by not
propogating EID routes in backbone areas entirely surrounded by LISP boxes,
wherein only RLOC routes are actually needed), the picture can become even
more complicated.

Both ends of the process have relatively simple pictures, I think. (In the
case above, at the end-state wherein we have only stub non-LISP areas left,
then internal to those stub non-LISP areas one has 'default routes' which
funnel all traffic toward both EIDs, and non-LISP sites - which have to have
PETRs acting on their behalf - to the LISP xTRs at the stub boundary.)

It's the cases in the middle that get complicated - and which are not too
well explored. E.g. if one has large islands of LISP, but have not yet
reached the 'core and legacy stubs' stage, the routing can be tricky if one
wants to withdraw EID routes from within the islands.

Oh well, I'm sure we'l work it out!

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:11:53 -0400 (EDT)

> From: [email-masked]

    > Who will OWN the ALT ? 

Who owns the DNS?

	Noel

---

From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:42:58 +0300

Hello Noel

You wrote: 
>    > The issue of using EIDs in the intardomain routing is a 
>separate issue,
>    > but easily solvable ... No real issue there.
>
>I'm really at a loss to understand what you mean here, because 
>if LEID's are allocated without regard to actual network 
>connection location, routing tables are going to grow even faster...
>

I hope we are not confusing each other too much here. What I wrote was
just a reiteration on how the LISP base spec defines EID/LEID:

"...an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local structure
(subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not visible
to the global routing system...."

In this respect I am not sure what do you mean about saying that "the
EIDs/LEIDS can not be allocated without regards to actual network
connection location". If that is really the case then the above
quotation is missleading and should be considered to be clarifier on the
matter that the EID is bound to a "connection location". (Not sure what
that is really, maybe  locations of ETRs? The Locator set? )  

Regards
Hannu