The theory proposed above seems based on the fact that providers want toattract traffic. I infer that the thinking here is that more inbound traffic would help offset unfavorable traffic balances, which would be helpful for peering negotiations. In the case of customer trafficapproaching a PTR, this would seem to be no different, as the traffic wouldbe arriving at the ISP anyway. Thus, the benefit would seem to be for
Right, you got it.
non-customer traffic. However, for non-customer traffic, the PTR wouldencapsulate/decapsulate and hairpin the traffic back outside of the
The PTR just encapsulates. The return traffic uses the RLOCs (from the LISP site's point of view) which are routable addresses of the non- LISP site.
provider. In effect, this gives a way for the provider to attract newtraffic, both inbound and outbound, and not receive revenue for it. While I can see that it might be of interest to some, I don't see the broad appeal.
I bet an exchange carrier would love to attract traffic.And why does every service provider want Google, Yahoo, MSN, Facebook, EBAY, and MySpace to be their customer?
There is appeal and I wish operators on this list would speak up. Dino -- 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