IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers

"Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com> Mon, 21 September 2009 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <darlewis@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F7E3A691D for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYUAAY2gYnF1 for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB973A68A1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAH9Ut0qrR7O6/2dsb2JhbAC7PohQAY5LBYIzgWiBXQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,425,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="206607402"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2009 17:25:10 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8LHP97l001426; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:25:09 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8LHP9r5018318; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:25:09 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.153]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:25:08 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:25:08 -0700
Message-ID: <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A15D0AAD@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AB5AA3C.5090805@firstpr.com.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
Thread-Index: Aco5p8aiGmxoqLhZQte8R2cIXbSX/wBN/K6Q
References: <20090919171820.746426BE628@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4AB5AA3C.5090805@firstpr.com.au>
From: "Darrel Lewis (darlewis)" <darlewis@cisco.com>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, lisp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2009 17:25:08.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[77C45000:01CA3AE0]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=877; t=1253553910; x=1254417910; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=darlewis@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Darrel=20Lewis=20(darlewis)=22=20<darlewis@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[lisp]=20LISP=20Interworking=3A=20=20Pr oxy=20Egress=20Tunnel=20Routers |Sender:=20; bh=srI6CPgxiF6HT48JIv8w4vvkQNm0NeOKkI+lYGvxYu8=; b=o5O/9VOp5eFsFND7W5zwTL0TRreij+FbJeVEgwgYZH23wrCSAwBSF4WPk+ BUxYcjk+id6ELDT1UeWAkl5CAjfYzwEt4cvuodi6Jp25wjUVi+CPTjOtXAvt D9E0WIkPv2;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=darlewis@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:24:21 -0000

 
> 
> I am not saying there isn't a viable business model for PETRs.  I am
> just saying that I don't know what the business model is for PETRs
> and that I think that at least one seemingly viable model should be
> proposed before the whole PETR concept is accepted.
> 
> 
> 

Here is a simple one.  A provider wants to advertise that it allows for
IPv6 connectivity, but it does not have equipment in the access network
that supports v6 natively.  So it offers a v6 service that includes a
CPE device that runs LISP, and some PETRs for those CPE's to use when
accessing non-LISP sites.  IPv6 packets sent from the hosts at the site
are encapsulated in v4 and sent over the access network that does not
support v6.

There are a myriad of other possibilities here, including over-the-top
service providers who offer PETR services.  

-Darrel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email