Noel,
|Or is there some reason this situation is significantly |different from, say, |.COM? There's one significant difference, which is the initial condition. As part of the transition plan to LISP, a new site has effectively two choices: find a mapping provider that supports an EID aggregate for their existing prefix or renumber their site into their new mapping provider's EID. I see a few options: the new site can provide their own mapping service and not aggregate, impacting the scalability of the mapping. The new site can find a provider who is covering their existing prefix. This could be very challenging if the prefix is part of the swamp, for example. Also, if you do find such a provider, you're already at a disadvantage negotiating with them. You would have to renumber unless you can strike a deal with them. Effectively, they are a single source and can charge whatever they like, up until their prospective clients choose to renumber. The analogy of having a group of providers supporting .com is a good one. If that could be worked out, that could conceivably create an open market for mapping services. However, please note that such a market would have to be created for each and every mapping aggregate. Unlike TLDs, I suspect that we will need more top levels. How many aggregates do we forsee? 1000? Frankly, I'm skeptical that we will be able to create this market. Regards, Tony -- 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
