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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Why does any operator have a reason to carr any routes other than their 
paying customers?  Because it provides connectivity for their customers.
If we get this block allocaed, then it results in 1 extra routing entry 
in the global routing table to support LISP inter-working.
An entry that some of their customers may use, whether the operator 
carrying it knows that or not.

In fact, it would take significant extra work for the operator to 
somehow block this aggregate.

If LISP fails, this is a small cost to find out.
If LISP succeeds, this results in significant reduction in core tabl 
sizes for everyone.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/16/2012 11:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Joel,
>
> On 16/11/2012 16:00, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> ...
>> With regard to interworking and deployment, there are a number of
>> documents that deal with that.  They discuss what the currently
>> understood deployment incentives are, and what paths are currently seen.
>>    (As Noel noted, this is an experiment, and one should expect that the
>> actual path will be different from the expectation.)  Given that
>> interworkng dives are data plane devices, altruism is clearly not a
>> sufficient incentive to get this to scale, and the models do not depend
>> upon that.
>
> My concern with this allocation request was not about scaling
> but about black holes. What are the incentives for operators not
> very interested in LISP to carry the routes that make it work?
> That's the root of many of the problems with 6to4 (and, I think,
> many of the problems of the MBONE, for those with long memories).
>
> Regards
>      Brian
>