On 5 Dec 2013, at 9:34 am, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I don't think its quite as simple as that Ron. If the role of a service >> provider is to provide service to its customers then an ISP with a LISP >> interface may advertise the entire LISP prefix to its global unicast >> non-LISP customers, but no further. > > Is this really how it works? If so, how would someone connected to an ISP > that does not deploy a PITR access a LISP site? > Our experience with piecemeal advertisements of 2002::/16 points to an answer that says that such folk as you describe here are then reliant on the kindness of strangers, or alternatively things are broken for them, or even both. > P.S. It would be great if we could nail down some of these details. For > instance, who is expected to operate the PITR, the EID allocator (as Joel > suggests) or the ISP (as you suggest). Who is expected to advertise which > routes. Until we understand this, it is impossible to have an intelligent > conversation and probably premature to make an address block allocation. I'm not sure I agree Ron - the prospect of the allocation has teased out this matter, and it has made an otherwise abstract conversation into one that probably needs some level of timely resolution, if we can. If we can clarify the draft even in terms of expectation of routing behaviour I think that we would have done enough for an experimental allocation context at this point in time. Geoff _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
