Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

[Rene Bartsch <[e-mail]>]

Am 2013-11-03 23:32, schrieb Luigi Iannone:
> On 1 Nov. 2013, at 05:45 , Sander Steffann <[e-mail]> 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


What about a dual approach? Third parties for highly reliable PxTRs and 
long-term integration of public PxTRs in the ISP-/backbone 
infrastructure to handle mass deployment for consumer roaming and IP 
portability.

Today we have number porting between providers for phone numbers. Why 
not having global IP porting for consumers with a lifetime 
LISP-PI-prefix ...?

Renne


-- 
Best regards,

Rene Bartsch, B. Sc. Informatics