Good points Joel. I completely agree. Dino
On Nov 16, 2012, at 9:26 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: > Why does any operator have a reason to carr any routes other than their > paying customers? Because it provides connectivity for their customers. > If we get this block allocaed, then it results in 1 extra routing entry in > the global routing table to support LISP inter-working. > An entry that some of their customers may use, whether the operator carrying > it knows that or not. > > In fact, it would take significant extra work for the operator to somehow > block this aggregate. > > If LISP fails, this is a small cost to find out. > If LISP succeeds, this results in significant reduction in core tabl sizes > for everyone. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 11/16/2012 11:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Joel, >> >> On 16/11/2012 16:00, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> ... >>> With regard to interworking and deployment, there are a number of >>> documents that deal with that. They discuss what the currently >>> understood deployment incentives are, and what paths are currently seen. >>> (As Noel noted, this is an experiment, and one should expect that the >>> actual path will be different from the expectation.) Given that >>> interworkng dives are data plane devices, altruism is clearly not a >>> sufficient incentive to get this to scale, and the models do not depend >>> upon that. >> >> My concern with this allocation request was not about scaling >> but about black holes. What are the incentives for operators not >> very interested in LISP to carry the routes that make it work? >> That's the root of many of the problems with 6to4 (and, I think, >> many of the problems of the MBONE, for those with long memories). >> >> Regards >> Brian >> > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
