Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 17, 2012 9:12 AM, "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> >> 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?
>
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.
> > 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?
>
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
> (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