[133368] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Wed Dec 8 16:12:43 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-x7CcLSM6qY-reCPz-wtV9KX=Nm36CSVCUP7s@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:12:32 -0800
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Cameron,
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> I believe a lot of folks think the routing paths should be tightly
> coupled with the physical topology.
The downside, of course, being that if you change your location within =
the physical topology, you have to renumber. Enterprises have already =
voted with their feet that this isn't acceptable with IPv4 and they'll =
no doubt do the same with IPv6.
> In a mature IPv6 world, that is sane, i am not sure what the
> real value of LISP is.
Sanity is in the eye of the beholder. The advantage a LISP(-like) =
scheme provides is a way of separating location from identity, allowing =
for arbitrary topology change (and complexity in the form of =
multi-homing) without affecting the identities of the systems on the =
network. Changing providers or multi-homing would thus not result in a =
renumbering event or pushing yet another prefix into the DFZ.
> Then there is the question of who benefits from LISP
> and who pays. The edge pays and the DFZ guys benefit (they deffer
> router upgrades).... i already pay the DFZ guys enough today.
Increased size/flux in the DFZ as a result of PI allocations, more =
specifics announced for traffic engineering, and multi-homing _will_ =
increase the cost to the "DFZ guys" as they have to upgrade their =
routers to deal with growth. It is unlikely they'll not pass that cost =
on to their customers.
Regards,
-drc
