Exactly. And arguably the closer the the ISP PITRs are to its customer sources, it may be on their default path so maybe the /32 doesn't need to be advertised at all.
Dino On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Paul Vinciguerra <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
