On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jeff Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:04 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree that costs shouldn't be dictated. More specifically, I don't think >> the draft should get into how the service is funded other than to say the >> allocation service can't charge more than the cost to provide the service. > > Do you know if any RIRs want to provide registration service for LISP > EID space? Have you asked any RIR for a cost estimate? > > As you may know, my opinion is the LISP mapping service is far from > ready for Internet-scale use. > > It would require RIR policy proposal to cause them to begin allocating > address space for LISP. The RIRs may guess how much money they would > spend on doing it, and you would be amazed how much time and money the > RIRs can spend on something that seems to be simple (and probably > should be.) > > I think many members would be inclined to vote AGAINST spending > resources on LISP registration services at this time.
You just mention my biggest problem with using the RIR system as it is - policy proposal. As said earlier, this draft mention RIR because that's a starting point, it goes back to the suggestion I gave on draft-lisp-eid-block-03 [1*] We could have written more in the draft on how we should do this but I think both you and David Conrad has mention plenty of reason why we should consider our options way before we go into the question of who should do the job involved. If you read my suggestion close you'll see I suggested the RIR as _one_ option. [1*] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/current/msg04155.html -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE [email protected] | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | [email protected] _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
