Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Sun, 03 November 2013 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 019C021F9DCE for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:32:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 rsgLuB+9flBA for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:32:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com (mail-bk0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F9F21E80D2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id u16so1019414bkz.35 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:32:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=3HFvfxmYLTGn4gDBw9IWru9ZTmQHrL08kM1wrMVsuKc=; b=df9VFIsiQOsZZcY9BaiviG5Y047mmqjVxZHAH8SpC/+xM1Bx/yVLLOc09551tsOgMy xrdt7b/GOKbPnPHIp5quHUvGuiKmsGJPJ4O+k6CoZjobfZZNCS0EJDEbd+xHKV9w1S6A ZgEkhP02dZxwSjFBTPrbIcCA8+QvCmkKOX9JftAyB0UxNLKsIsrh8Vgv8eIaggqSl9B8 hjCPdLprduJL+CEVa0buuhxlAPFl2LF+QtlsSw0MuiA3ey0jF+Y9NLJcdyX/IjMjpNsB IQFWattWqZ26mbWcBxvT+QYkWPoUcmpHoQzoMu5oMWR2W96IQk41NawCW5HWWG1qCdPo H61w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkuOvvllHFtgLdTPjvX+71WylWYYwnK8qZYe73YdGBhYDy8dLaZN4D/X1nv4LMjLLF+mvNu
X-Received: by 10.205.3.7 with SMTP id nw7mr2258636bkb.26.1383517933852; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:32:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-ac50.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-ac50.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.172.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id on10sm12715490bkb.13.2013.11.03.14.32.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:32:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <FBB83D5B-E5C1-493E-8FAD-2AF489759CBF@steffann.nl>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:32:08 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82F5CF42-2E3A-444A-8449-39B01C0B2C3B@gigix.net>
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> <FBB83D5B-E5C1-493E-8FAD-2AF489759CBF@steffann.nl>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:32:20 -0000

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