Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review - scalability

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> Clearly, scalability of LISP matters.
> However, we are explicitly not attempting to move LISP to standards track for purposes of solving global Internet address scaling problems. The agreement under which we are doing this is to focus on the value of the other uses of LISP.

Right, that is not the sole problem to solve. But removing the features of what overlays bring to the document would not be a good idea.

> To put it simply Dino, if we try to make the argument that LISP is suitable for Internet-scale 

That is not what the text is saying. The text that people are commenting on is that the aggregatabeility of RLOC addresses should be present in the document.

> deployment, and for solving the core growth difficulties, we will have a large set of additional arguments to undertake.  If we focus on what we have agreed, we get Proposed Standards without having that fight.  And we get to use a PS for all sorts of interesting and desirable tasks.

I agree that the document should not say we are trying to scale the Internet. And I believe it does not say that.

Dino

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 12/26/17 11:13 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> I will comment here before providing a new update and response to Luigi’s latest email.
>>> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Albert Cabellos <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the review, please find my comments inline.
>>> 
>>> I have removed all the comments for which I **agree**:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses:   PA addresses are an address block
>>>>      assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site
>>>>      connects.  Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
>>>>      provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and
>>>>      is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into
>>>>      the global Internet.  Traditionally, IP multihoming has been
>>>>      implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
>>>>      visible prefix.  LISP uses only topologically assigned and
>>>>      aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this
>>>>      demonstrably non-scalable practice.
>>>> 
>>>> Last sentence to be deleted is a relic of scalability discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Agreed. I suggest deleting entirely the definitions for both PA and PI, they are not used throughout the document.
>> Note, we still care about scalability of any underlay, especially the Internet core, so we should leave this in. Note, we ARE still solving the scalability problem.
>> I don’t know why any of you would think differently.