Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review - scalability

["Joel M. Halpern" <[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.

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

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.
>