Dino,
Perhaps we should first agree that there is a need a *short term*
solution for both IPv4 and IPv6. The following (from Tony's e-mail
on 5/26/2008) is relevant to the discussion on whether there is
such a need:
Well, Ross Callon has been quoted as saying that the Juniper
implementation will have no problems up through many millions
of routes.
Now, conceptually, that could happen tomorrow. However, at the
current growth rates, that's likely to be many years.
The routing table size problem is not the only problem.
Good. So, at least we seems to agree that we do not need LISP
to deal with the routing table size.
No, you didn't read the sentence carefully, I said "not the only
problem". There is problem with any database that gets too large.
Yakov, the vendor side of it is one thing and most of our products can
support large tables. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried
about the increase in OpEx and control plane performance for the
operators.
There are many
enterprise sites that want to do low-cost multihoming, they want to
be
good citizens to the Internet and don't want to inject more
specifics,
and they want to control their ingress traffic flows.
LISP is *not* going to reduce the cost of multi-homing. To the
contrary, LISP is going to make the cost of multihoming higher than
it is today. This is because deploying and operating additional
Why do you say that? Of course if the architecture is straight
forward, the implementation can proceed to optimize on simplicity and
ease of use.
So if you are going to say, without data, that LISP is going to cost
more. Than I will respond and say that it will not. ;-)
infrastructure/mechanisms to support LISP has its own (non-zero)
cost.
Revenue source opportunity. Look at it that way. There is always a
cost of doing something new, but if you can monetize it with the
benefits, then it is a win.
Moreover, LISP would would place this cost not only on the enterprises
that want to do multihoming, but on other parties as well (which
would result in mis-alignment of cost relative to benefits).
Say more. I don't follow. The cost of doing BGP is high for end-sites,
but they can't control active-active connection on ingress even though
they pay that cost. Their egress policy is done in the IGP. So what is
BGP buying them at the site?
Dino
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
