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

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Feb 2, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:

> Some of this discussion about the merits of LISP-ALT and of other
> schemes is only happening on the RRG list and so is not on the other
> lists crossposted in this reply.
>

Can people please stop posting this discussion to 4 lists.

Regards
Marshall

>  http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> You wrote, in part:
>
>> 1. Large companies with their own international networks will
>> surely never adopt a solution which doesn't allow them to have
>> a straightforward, consistent and 100% internally managed
>> addressing plan.
>
> I agree.  In my view, this means they want and need portable address
> space.  I think placing "portable" anywhere near "address" in a
> sentence makes some peoples' teeth itch, including especially
> yourself!  But I think this is what networks want and need: stable
> public address space they retain for year after year, and can use via
> any ISP, ideally being able to split it up very finely between
> multiple ISPs and to change which ISP they use it with - quickly and
> with little cost to themselves or other people.
>
> The core-edge separation schemes LISP, APT and Ivip all provide
> portable address space, like PI space, but not handled directly by
> BGP, not obtained in necessarily big chunks and probably obtained
> from some company or other organisation, rather than directly from an
> RIR.
>
> Also, this new kind of space (I call it Scalable PI space) can be
> sliced up much more finely by the scheme's mapping system, down to
> the individual IP address, compared to the administrative limits
> placed on BGP's finesse, such as /24 for IPv4.  (Ivip only goes to
> /64 resolution for IPv6.)  This space will have initial and ongoing
> costs, but it won't involve BGP expertise, BGP routers, being an AS  
> etc.
>
>
>> 2. They also won't adopt a solution in which local customers
>> experience world-crossing delays for accessing local sites.
>> They will use DNS tricks, redirects, CDNs, and overlay routing
>> to get round this.
>
> I agree.  This rules out the use of a core-edge separation scheme
> with a global query server system (LISP-CONS, LISP-ALT and TRRP).
> There are ways of caching the mapping closer to ITRs, but this raises
> problems.
>
>
>> It's to be hoped that loc/id solutions such as LISP will be viewed
>> as a help in this game rather than as a new enemy.
>
> I tend to think that HIP is a real locator ID separation system.  I
> don't think of LISP, APT or Ivip in these terms.
>
> I think "Core edge separation scheme" is a better general term for
> LISP, APT, Ivip and TRRP.  (Maybe RANGER too.)
>
> But I agree - if LISP-ALT only provides a global query server system
> and if it became "The Routing Scaling Solution" for solving the
> routing scaling problem, then I think many people would consider the
> delays and fragility of a global query server system sufficient
> reason not to adopt the scheme.  Yet, in order to solve the routing
> scaling problem, we need pretty much all end-user networks, large and
> small (who want multihoming, portability etc.) to adopt the one  
> scheme.
>
>  - Robin
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion