IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Sat, 17 November 2012 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 D619221F851F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 zcZlal8PJbRg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BE121F8532 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 8792F18C08D; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:36:32 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Message-Id: <20121117193632.8792F18C08D@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:36:32 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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 19:36:33 -0000

    > From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>

    >> 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 didn't see an answer to this question (which is not at all LISP-specific -
rather, it's a general observation about the allocation of overhead costs in
a network). Why should site B, which _never_ talks to X, have to pay, so that
site A can talk to X?

    > edge sites have to buy more routers with newer functions.

???? Each vendor will have its own answer to this question, but the LISP
software suites I know of are new loads for existing router hardware. Do you
know of a LISP package which only comes with new hardware?

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email