On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:23 AM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote: > You and I appear to agree that the RIRs are undesirable for the purposes of > EID management during (at least) the initial phases of the LISP experimental > deployment, so I'll skip that part of your message.
The question at hand is who would be good / desirable to perform this role? > There is another model where you ensure uniqueness by partitioning the space > amongst the retailers, but I'm assuming you're not proposing that. I think there are better options than partitioning the space, yes. > While the registry/registrar split model isn't without its problems (just > hang around ICANN for a while and those problems will become painfully > apparent), I would agree it might be a viable/appropriate model _in the long > term_. Having nearly daily interactions with the DNS registries and > registrars at a policy level, I have quite a bit of skepticism that they'll > be at all interested in participating in the LISP experiment at this point in > time, particularly as they're gearing up for new gTLD deployment and it is a > bit unlikely there will be much money in LISP EID allocation for the > foreseeable future (if ever: it's unlikely you'll be able to charge a premium > price for particular LISP EIDs). I don't think it matters that they can't charge a premium for x:867:5309::. If they felt like they had to charge a premium for services to make money, would they be selling $9/year dot-coms or relatively inexpensive green-SSL-certs? They operate efficiently enough to provide these services (plus DNS, some even email or basic web hosting) for a low price to the end-user. Not only that, many registrars answer their phone 24x7, and you can almost certainly find a domain-registrar with staff who speaks your local language and does business in your local currency. I wouldn't expect more than a small number of registrars to become "early adopters" but it puts in place a time-limited, experimental framework for what LISP needs in the long-term to be successful. I don't see how that can be anything other than a win, as long as at least one registrar chooses to participate. > In the near term, I believe we want something as simple as possible. This > implies to me that a highly-automated unified registry/registrar is the right > way to go. Since EIDs do not need to be aggregatable, allocation of fixed > sized blocks more-or-less on demand (very much like Private Enterprise > Numbers allocated by IANA at http://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page) > would seem to be sufficient. If you want something "as simple as possible" you could ask one of the academic institutions or companies who are working on LISP to do it, hand out the EID blocks for no charge, and figure out how to scale it up and generate revenue later. So the truth is, you probably don't want "as simple as possible" but you want one party to be the traffic-cop for all registrations, and initially, probably the sole source for anyone who wants to buy an EID block. We disagree here because I think there is huge value to expanding LISP's ecosystem. Having a few for-profit companies interested in it, besides the companies making routers, would be healthy. [dns & whois] > I'd argue providing 5 9s of pretty much anything is neither easy nor > inexpensive, however at this stage of LISP deployment, I doubt 5 9s is > required. I agree that probably isn't needed, but I think it would be easier than you suppose. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote: > Having two mechanisms to allocate EID. Private and RIRs. I'm not suggesting two different mechanisms. I'm suggesting one framework under which both an RIR and a private company could be registrars. I don't think there need be any distinction between them. -- Jeff S Wheeler <[email protected]> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
