Re: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Dino.

First, I have the same concern with large scaling NATs with v6 as Brian had.

Then you said that while possible, they are not mandatory:

> With IPv6 and a single allocation for the global EID-prefix space, we
> can use PTRs very efficiently by injecting a single route from 100s of
> places.

Yes. But in the meeting you promised to come back to the issue of how
this can be made to work business-wise. The problem that I can see is
that if all PTRs announce the whole (or big chunks of it), they have no
capability to say no to any customer. Anyone's packets can be routed to
the nearest PTR, and once the PTR has a packet, it cannot refuse to
tunnel it to the right place. So from a business point of view this
makes it hard or perhaps impossible to contract with customers for this
service. Presumably the motives for deploying PTRs must then lie
elsewhere, such as in improving your regular customer's service, or some
interaction with the business models of plain old Internet SP business
models.

Have you thought more about this now, and can you say something about it
on the list?

Jari


--
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