Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 01 November 2013 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4458621E8277 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y9vu0p1uvtFu for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2825721E8235 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 05:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D52243; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:45:54 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3BhX1FObP3Dt; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:45:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39F443D; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:45:48 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <8119249a5b4cb0604726fa7560538cf3@bartschnet.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:45:47 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBB83D5B-E5C1-493E-8FAD-2AF489759CBF@steffann.nl>
References: <20131030154454.587D918C143@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <15CC7F54-075E-4EB8-940B-8DCB198134A2@apnic.net> <E6AD700C-DC48-48DB-9FF5-A24C6121834C@gmail.com> <D68CD130-50BC-42AE-95E5-A4EBEEB20808@apnic.net> <8119249a5b4cb0604726fa7560538cf3@bartschnet.de>
To: Rene Bartsch <ietf@bartschnet.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:48:50 -0000

Hi,

> I want to ask everyone on the list: Which facts prevent a scaling experiment with the aim of global production state? In my opinion a /16-EID-prefix is perfect for that goal.

The problem is in that what you describe depends on public PITRs, and we have seen how badly that worked for 6to4 public relays. Running a public relay costs money (equipment, maintenance, bandwidth), and when nobody pays for them then we cannot expect any decent quality. And LISP will be blamed and seen as an unreliable protocol, just like 6to4. Relying on public relays is a very bad idea.

Now, if some big tier-1 transit networks start running production quality PxTRs (because PxTRs attract traffic, and their customers pay for traffic) then I can see some possibilities. If the LISP traffic volume increases then other networks might also start running PxTRs so they don't have to pay their transits for it, and then we are getting somewhere. But as long as 'public PxTR' means 'someone with good intentions but no real responsibility' then this will be a dangerous experiment for LISP...

Cheers,
Sander