Am 2013-11-03 23:32, schrieb Luigi Iannone:
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
What about a dual approach? Third parties for highly reliable PxTRs and
long-term integration of public PxTRs in the ISP-/backbone
infrastructure to handle mass deployment for consumer roaming and IP
portability.
Today we have number porting between providers for phone numbers. Why
not having global IP porting for consumers with a lifetime
LISP-PI-prefix ...?
Renne
--
Best regards,
Rene Bartsch, B. Sc. Informatics
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
