Subject: Re: [lisp] #63: On the use of anycast addresses for RLOCs (from Y. Rekhter's review)

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:48:32 -0000

#63: On the use of anycast addresses for RLOCs (from Y. Rekhter's review)

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  new => resolved
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Authors replied on the mailinglist that in their opinion there is no need
 to make any change to the draft. Neither the original person that raised
 the issue nor the mailinglist stated a different opinion.

-- 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical                      |       Status:  resolved       
Priority:  major                          |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |   Resolution:  fixed          
Keywords:                                 |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/63#comment:3>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:48:54 -0000

Changes (by luigi@…):

  * status:  resolved => closed

    Type:  technical                      |       Status:  closed         

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/63#comment:4>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues

---

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:24:23 -0000

Changes (by yakov@…):

  * status:  closed => reopened
  * resolution:  fixed =>

Comment:

 The new draft still does not fully address the issue raised in this
 ticket. To close this ticket the authors should replace

    Another disadvantage of using anycast locators is the limited
 advertisement
    scope of /32 (or /128 for IPv6) routes.

 with the following:

   When more than one CE at a site is configured with the same IP
   address (in which case an RLOC is an anycast address), then in
   order to avoid negative implications on routing scalability (in
   order to prevent carrying RLOCs as individual /32 (or /128 for
   IPv6) routes throughout the whole Internet), for a given site only
   CEs connected to the same ISP may be configured with the same IP
   address. Thus to avoid negative implications on routing scalability
   use of anycast addresses as RLOCs for CEs should be
   constrained to only the CEs connected to the same ISP.

-- 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Reporter:  luigi@…                        |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical                      |       Status:  reopened       
Priority:  major                          |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                              |   Resolution:                 
Keywords:                                 |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/63#comment:5>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues