[RRG] Re: Aggregation Implies Provider Dependence (LISP-ALT) & Ivip dependencies too

[Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>]

Robin -

> Alternatively, invoking ALT's potential for meshiness, the first ALT
> router might be a local one, not owned by whoever provides the
> address space. [...]

Any ALT deployment has to effect a trade-off between aggregation and
provider-independence.  If ALT is to aggregate EIDs, then an edge
network E's entry to the ALT infrastructure will have to be at a
particular ALT router, R1, that is defined by E's EID space.  And this
implies a dependence on R1's operator.  Otherwise, if you want to avoid
this dependence, you cannot aggregate.

You need to make the same trade-off even if, as you describe, E's direct
provider sets up an ALT router R2 to which E may connect.  Then again:

- You either prioritize aggregatability, in which case R2 must relay to
  R1.  E then remains technically dependent on R1's operator, even
  though business relationships may be transitive from E to E's direct
  provider to R1's operator.

- Or you prioritize independence from R1's operator, in which case R2
  must connect to the ALT infrastructure directly.  In this case you
  lose aggregatability.

> Absolute, true, independence from any one "provider" whilst
> retaining a given IP address is probably too much to ask from a
> map-encap scheme.  End-users need to choose their IP address
> provider with care.

My opinion is that, if we were going to change the Internet routing
system for the purpose of scalable provider-independence, we better
ensure that the new system reaches this goal fully, not half-heartedly.

- Christian





--
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