Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

Rene Bartsch <ietf@bartschnet.de> Thu, 07 November 2013 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bartschnet.de>
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 AC40521E8263 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:12:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 F1t2oi86uFUI for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:11:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtprelay06.ispgateway.de (smtprelay06.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.101]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13F221E8261 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [80.67.16.121] (helo=www.premium-webmail.de) by smtprelay06.ispgateway.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <ietf@bartschnet.de>) id 1VeRFP-0007jt-SD; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:11:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:11:51 +0100
From: Rene Bartsch <ietf@bartschnet.de>
To: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <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> <82F5CF42-2E3A-444A-8449-39B01C0B2C3B@gigix.net>
Message-ID: <31d13c04ea2cda6fc5cc28bcf88ce558@bartschnet.de>
X-Sender: ietf@bartschnet.de
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail
X-Df-Sender: cmVuZUBiYXJ0c2NobmV0LmRl
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:12:00 -0000

Am 2013-11-03 23:32, schrieb Luigi Iannone:
> 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


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