Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

On 1 Nov. 2013, at 05:45 , Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

> 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.

Hi Sander,

you are right. But IMHO this is one possible economic model.

What about third parties selling MR/MS services which include also PxTRs services?

Luigi

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp