Re: [RRG] incrementally deployable

[David Williamson <dlw+rrg@tellme.com>]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 08:57:08AM -0800, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) wrote:
> What if a 3rd party provides a proxy between the two systems,
> then incremental deployment is possible. Then networks who
> are not LISP capable can reach EIDs that are not in the global
> Routing table.

That's certainly a form of incremental deployment, and I alluded to it
in my original message.  The real question is if that's sufficient for
a wide majority of business models.  I'll take my own org as an
example: we run an extremely reliable service, but we have dependencies
on reaching customers and partners for content of various types.  Much
of that runs across direct private connections, so there's really no
impact from LISP.  Some of it, however, is over the Internet.

Would a 3rd party proxy be sufficiently robust and reliable to permit
me to make my site LISP capable and still have the level of
connectivity my business requires to those customers?  That's a very
hard quesiton to answer.  I'm not saying it's out of the question, but
it's a very troublesome additional piece of complexity for a service
provider to contemplate.  I honestly don't know the answer right now.
The concept is palatable, but it would depend on the business features
of a 3rd party product.

> Alternatively, what if an xTR performs NAT between PA space
> and EID space?

Where would PI fit in this?  Renumbering into PA space isn't a viable
option at the moment.  I don't think I quite see the entire implications
here, yet.

Thanks!

-David

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg