IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Mon, 21 September 2009 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30E328C20E for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0wHAbzcdhupI for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4134C28C1C9 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id D1D296BE54F; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20090921171408.D1D296BE54F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:14:08 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:13:09 -0000

    > From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>

    > First, some assumptions I make:

Good set.

    > For PTRs and PETRs

Minor terminology nit: I've been suggesting that we call these things
PITRs and PETRs, so the terms have symmetry.

    > The distinction I draw is between that and "a thorough set of
    > possible business models." We are not trying to explore the space of
    > business models ... I think we need to convince ourselves that the
    > business model has enough solidity that it may succeed. After that,
    > the experiments should help us tell who is interested, and what the
    > actual costs are, etc... Our initial evaluation needs to look at
    > overall incentives and overall costs, not details of business models.

Exactly.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email