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 17:12 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 E54DB21F84E7; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:12:40 -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 JWhOpIoqGT9c; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5292E21F84DF; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id E4A4118C08F; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:12:38 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Message-Id: <20121117171238.E4A4118C08F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:12:38 -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 17:12:41 -0000

    > 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?

    > 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?

(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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email