Ron, I think that Dino is suggesting that ISP's with their own populations deploy PITRs for this /32 prefix and announce the /32 into BGP with a no-export community, so that you as an ISP provide encapsulation as close to source of your customer population only. This will (1) save you transit costs to another PITR provider for this prefix. You would only be paying for transit if the RLOC were not on your network. where otherwise you might be paying for transit between two of your customers. (2) it will give your customers an optimal path because you are encapsulating close to the source. and this will (3) allow for PITR Gateways to be deployed on smaller equipment.
Also, this would not stop a given EID who wants to have global reachability from a given PITR gateway system from buying "EID Transit" from a PITR provider who will announce the more specific EID prefix out of the /32 for a price. I don't know that announcing a more specific globally is a great idea, though. It actually could cause traffic to take a less direct path. Paul ________________________________________ From: lisp [[email protected]] on behalf of Ronald Bonica [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:27 PM To: Dino Farinacci Cc: LISP mailing list list Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07 Hi Dino, Could you be a bit more explicit? Please assume the following operator requirements: - In order to ensure the customer experience, an operator wants to attract all traffic from the global Internet to LISP sites that it supports through PITRs that it operates. - In order to maintain financial viability, that same operator does not want to attract any traffic from the global Internet to LISP sites that it does not support through PITRs that it operates. Do you agree that these are both valid requirements? If so, how can the operator do this while advertising only large aggregates of the EID address block to the global Internet? Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 12:18 PM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: Luigi Iannone; Geoff Huston; Sander Steffann; LISP mailing list > list > Subject: Re: [lisp] WGLC draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-07 > > > Assume that an operator deploys a PITR. What policy can that operator > enforce to ensure that it is compensated for all (or even most) of the > traffic that it carries across that PITR? > > Through the same monetizing means it does today to attract any type of > traffic it wants to transit. > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
