Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:12:38 -0500 (EST)

> From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>

    >> If LISP succeeds, this results in significant reduction in core table
    >> sizes for everyone.

    > Not everyone. Only people who carry core tables.

'this results in significant reduction in core table sizes for everyone who
has core tables' sounds a bit tautological, no?

    > That is LISP twist, it transfers cost from a few cores to many edges.

If you define 'many' is 'people who are actually trying to communicate with a
given site', yes. So it has transferred costs for communicating with site X
from 'everyone with a core table, everywhere in the entire network' to 'just
the people who are actually trying to communicate with site X'. This is
bad... how?

(When I first quickly read your message, I thought you were making a point
about the routing overhead of EIDs being carried in the global routing tables
for use by legacy sites, which is an interesting point, but not the one that
you make here.)

	Noel

---

From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:26:59 -0800

Sent from ipv6-only Android
> has core tables' sounds a bit tautological, no?

No. Most networks dont carry full bgp routes. "Most networks" is an odd
definition. So, I will say my network does not carry full bgp routes.

> the people who are actually trying to communicate with site X'. This is

I am not a LISP expert (ILNP sounds better to me, but we are already way
OT), LISP has never passed my smell test. But the only thing I have gleaned
of it is that dfz caps in size while edge sites have to buy more routers
with newer functions. Which sounds good for "tier 1" operators who are on
the hook for dfz scaling and for router vendors who are on the hook for
selling more routers.   There might even be something in it for folks who
who are nostalgic for ATM SVCs.

There are a lot of ways to shrink the dfz. LISP, imho, is unlikely to
succeed due to the economic incentives not being aligned. It requires
action at edge sites for problems edge sites don't have (dfz scaling).

CB