On 1 Nov. 2013, at 05:45 , Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > >> I want to ask everyone on the list: Which facts prevent a scaling experiment >> with the aim of global production state? In my opinion a /16-EID-prefix is >> perfect for that goal. > > The problem is in that what you describe depends on public PITRs, and we have > seen how badly that worked for 6to4 public relays. Running a public relay > costs money (equipment, maintenance, bandwidth), and when nobody pays for > them then we cannot expect any decent quality. And LISP will be blamed and > seen as an unreliable protocol, just like 6to4. Relying on public relays is a > very bad idea. Hi Sander, you are right. But IMHO this is one possible economic model. What about third parties selling MR/MS services which include also PxTRs services? Luigi > > Now, if some big tier-1 transit networks start running production quality > PxTRs (because PxTRs attract traffic, and their customers pay for traffic) > then I can see some possibilities. If the LISP traffic volume increases then > other networks might also start running PxTRs so they don't have to pay their > transits for it, and then we are getting somewhere. But as long as 'public > PxTR' means 'someone with good intentions but no real responsibility' then > this will be a dangerous experiment for LISP... > > Cheers, > Sander > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
