> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> You make it scale up by starting to deploy something. That is where we are >> with LISP. > > No, you're not. You're thinking about maybe asking IANA to beg RIRs > to hand out experimental address blocks. RIR memberships are likely
Jeff, there are many paths to go forward. This ID is only a single path and if it doesn't pan out, it does not threaten LISP deployment. We are just asking for a well-known prefix. > to say no if it even gets that far. If they happen to say yes, it > will still create a very high barrier-to-entry for anyone to try to > participate in what you claim you're deploying. > > You're also saying that no one should be able to profit from EID > registration so you reduce the potential pool of non-RIR-entities who > might be willing to provide this service, and become stakeholders in > LISP's success. I am not saying that. I am saying I don't care how the business models are creative going forward. Let the market decide how this will go. And I certainly don't want to dictate or even suggest any models. >> If there isn't a public mapping database system deployed, enterprises will >> do it themselves because it is easy enough to do. But we really don't want >> this to turn into many "private clouds" as we see with the various cloud >> based services being offered by industry. I think there will be private >> mapping database systems but I think there will also be public ones as well. >> The question is to try to avoid the complexities of a hybrid private/public. >> The same ones we see with cloud infrastructures right now. > > I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that the DNS system has many > registrars but only one delegation path for dot-com, etc. Operation > of mapping servers could be decoupled from the registration service, > it could be a shared responsibility of several registration service > entities, whatever. Yes, it could. > My point is that you haven't even thought about it. All you seem to > have thought is, oh the RIRs should do it for us, and by the way, > let's make sure no one can profit from this. We wanted to try using a process that is already in place. There is consensus forming that RIRs may be the wrong place. I'm fine with that. > If two or more RIRs can provide registration services, then so can two > or more ordinary businesses. You know that, you've simply pretended > it isn't true for the purposes of arguing against it in your post. > That doesn't help anyone. Umm, I'm confused. I made a suggestion. It could be way wrong. I wanted to generate discussion. We have accomplished that. > You don't even have to sub-divide the EID block in the discussed > manner to support multiple commercial registrars. Agree. >> Jeff, I see environments deploying overlays where all end-nodes are ONLY >> EIDs. So the negative map-cache entries don't even play there. > > Yes, they'll just break xTRs. See my previous postings on this topic. > > As long as you pretend this is not a problem, you are obstructing any > possible improvements. The solution works, has limited scalability, and there are many ways to avoid or get around it. They come at costs, and we have to make tradeoffs. Dino > > -- > Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]> > Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
