[rrg] [lisp] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

[David Meyer]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:42:47PM -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
> Excerpts from Christopher Morrow on Mon, Feb 02, 2009 01:21:19PM -0500:
> > > According to your email to Robin, LISP/ALT currently makes the following
> > > tradeoff:  Portability of EID prefixes is limited geographically in
> > > order to curb path stretch along the ALT topology to the maximum that
> > > can happen within a geographical region.
> > >
> > > That's possible, of course.  The cost is that networks scattered over
> > > different parts of the world, such as those of enterprises with global
> > > presence, cannot use a continuous address space internally -- even if
> > > they all attach to the same provider.
> > 
> > cant they? I thought one of the nice things about the loc/id split was
> > I could number my internals out of whatever I wanted, spread over
> > creation and the attachment points were the only things that required
> > aggregation, no?
> 
> Sure, but if one of your sites is in New Zealand, and has a prefix
> where the physical ALT hierarchy is optimized for sites in Europe, a
> source in New Zealand trying to contact your site would see more delay
> during the Map-Request/Reply exchange, even though it they are in the
> same town.  However, Map-Request/Reply exchanges don't happen very
> often, and the delay will be low (round trip across the Internet).

	Or not at all if you're not the first folks communicating
	between the sites.

	Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/attachments/20090202/32399370/attachment.sig>