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

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

Dino,

> There are only 2 technical solutions, NATs or PTRs. They can solve the
> problem. If you choose something else that you think makes business
> sense it could not even come close to solving the problem.
>
> Let's first worry about solving the technical problem. Or else we
> don't have to worry about any business models.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is acceptable. Deployability and
incentives have been a key issue from day one in this work. We really
need to have a solution that the relevant players want to deploy. That
is as important as the technical solution. We cannot fail either in the
technical solution or the business incentives of the design. I don't
think we should postpone discussion of the incentives; its an integral
and necessary part of the solution. Just like mapping and encapsulation
are both needed in the technical solution; encapsulation without the
mapping function isn't going to be very useful.

>> Have you thought more about this now, and can you say something about it
>> on the list?
>
> It's the same answer I said when I was standing up at RRG. Providers
> will do whatever they can to attract traffic. They typically don't
> want to say no. The more traffic they attract the more peering they
> can get. And the business opportunities start from there.

Ok, this is interesting. Not quite as concrete and clear-cut as I had
hoped, but a start. What do others think of this? Is there a way for us
to evaluate whether this is a sufficient incentive?

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