> Clearly, scalability of LISP matters. > However, we are explicitly not attempting to move LISP to standards track for > purposes of solving global Internet address scaling problems. The agreement > under which we are doing this is to focus on the value of the other uses of > LISP.
Right, that is not the sole problem to solve. But removing the features of what overlays bring to the document would not be a good idea. > To put it simply Dino, if we try to make the argument that LISP is suitable > for Internet-scale That is not what the text is saying. The text that people are commenting on is that the aggregatabeility of RLOC addresses should be present in the document. > deployment, and for solving the core growth difficulties, we will have a > large set of additional arguments to undertake. If we focus on what we have > agreed, we get Proposed Standards without having that fight. And we get to > use a PS for all sorts of interesting and desirable tasks. I agree that the document should not say we are trying to scale the Internet. And I believe it does not say that. Dino > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/26/17 11:13 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> I will comment here before providing a new update and response to Luigi’s >> latest email. >>> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Albert Cabellos <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Thanks for the review, please find my comments inline. >>> >>> I have removed all the comments for which I **agree**: >>> >>>> >>>> Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an address block >>>> assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site >>>> connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service >>>> provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and >>>> is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into >>>> the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been >>>> implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally >>>> visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically assigned and >>>> aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this >>>> demonstrably non-scalable practice. >>>> >>>> Last sentence to be deleted is a relic of scalability discussion. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Agreed. I suggest deleting entirely the definitions for both PA and PI, >>> they are not used throughout the document. >> Note, we still care about scalability of any underlay, especially the >> Internet core, so we should leave this in. Note, we ARE still solving the >> scalability problem. >> I don’t know why any of you would think differently. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
