Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Sat, 17 November 2012 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0BA21F84CA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:27:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Ntlrcr68BL-u for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0843921F84C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:27:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so3086082lbk.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:26:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j2Dq6MR3w5VKyDcvkrxHFbG7M44vCuePiNThTvbM9nQ=; b=GZ9ymlj0yvQTCpq2rAjoFw1WCsCc7XEDQO22t0NFQGN5c2IZSnceHa9VSxgYuyeYuy q60haewCPF6/AWu4tZWUy3Y9o9T542w8c+ctQLwYgwPlq/Ukv8BT/N8N+9haY7eUfoj/ CK+w1wbqSYjqoOd5cEpzaTve8tbcXwXCvD7Q5aNk9+/QaeBJ3nY4TShWgL8emia9vc35 yG3CsZ8v76VQKPmqQE+VwbI+eFbdpW8bsPv81IyBCa/4f03Dxbjtu7paQkal2Xz2CsUe ddJz7CTfRodVi2BIOMtjFsOHMEVq4wZLytfr67D6j81lMIG16kL5gXEAi/jm/20gh1ze 5Slw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.135.41 with SMTP id pp9mr7547206lab.7.1353176819691; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.167 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.167 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:26:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121117171238.E4A4118C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20121117171238.E4A4118C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:26:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQkWwu95Eq7seJEbiJKk5zfBD_8Gw8SOZkDiciajytjYw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044270caa7eeeb04ceb507da"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:27:02 -0000

Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 17, 2012 9:12 AM, "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>     > From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>
>     >> If LISP succeeds, this results in significant reduction in core
table
>     >> sizes for everyone.
>
>     > Not everyone. Only people who carry core tables.
>
> 'this results in significant reduction in core table sizes for everyone
who
> has core tables' sounds a bit tautological, no?
>

No. Most networks dont carry full bgp routes. "Most networks" is an odd
definition. So, I will say my network does not carry full bgp routes.

>     > That is LISP twist, it transfers cost from a few cores to many
edges.
>
> If you define 'many' is 'people who are actually trying to communicate
with a
> given site', yes. So it has transferred costs for communicating with site
X
> from 'everyone with a core table, everywhere in the entire network' to
'just
> the people who are actually trying to communicate with site X'. This is
> bad... how?
>

I am not a LISP expert (ILNP sounds better to me, but we are already way
OT), LISP has never passed my smell test. But the only thing I have gleaned
of it is that dfz caps in size while edge sites have to buy more routers
with newer functions. Which sounds good for "tier 1" operators who are on
the hook for dfz scaling and for router vendors who are on the hook for
selling more routers.   There might even be something in it for folks who
who are nostalgic for ATM SVCs.

There are a lot of ways to shrink the dfz. LISP, imho, is unlikely to
succeed due to the economic incentives not being aligned. It requires
action at edge sites for problems edge sites don't have (dfz scaling).

CB

> (When I first quickly read your message, I thought you were making a point
> about the routing overhead of EIDs being carried in the global routing
tables
> for use by legacy sites, which is an interesting point, but not the one
that
> you make here.)
>
>         Noel