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

[Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>]

> |> That implies that the source addresses seen by the core are non-
> |> routable
> |> EIDs, and you would run into source address filtering issues.
> |
> |What are source address filtering issues. ACLs? uRPF? Say more.
>
>
> uRPF is one example of an implementation of this type of sanity  
> checking.
> You can also do it via ACLs.  The concept is the same either way.

Okay and what was your point?

> If you generalize things, I think that you want to position the PTR
> functionality so that the PTR is nothing more than a giant ITR/ETR  
> that LISP
> sites would use by 'default'.  Conceptually you've worked out how to  
> get one

In practice we have LISP sites talking to other LISP sites.

> LISP site to talk to another.  PTRs are one way of simply turning  
> the entire
> rest of the Internet into a single giant LISP site.

LISP sites are not the ones that use PTRs, the non-LISP sites do.

> |> Relative to other exchanges, certainly.  However an exchange would
> |> still
> |> have to have a way to deliver the attracted traffic.  How?
> |
> |It deploys PTRs. That's how we started this conversation.
>
>
> Sorry, I was unclear.  The exchange site still would have to deliver  
> the
> traffic via some transit provider.  While the exchange might want more
> traffic (relative to other exchanges), I'm not seeing the benefits  
> to the
> transit providers.  Again, hairpinning traffic doesn't seem like a  
> win to
> anyone.

We can't be all things to all people. But there is a benefit to  
transition to LISP so the providers can reduce their routing tables at  
the same time as maintaining non-LISP site to LISP site connectivity.

> |> Eyeball
> |> networks would like to balance their traffic load, so they want to
> |> attract
> |> content.
> |
> |And if they deploy LISP they can. That is the appeal of
> |deploying LISP
> |at the site.
> |
> |> PTRs are neutral: they attract customer traffic (not new) or non-
> |> customer
> |> traffic (hairpinned).  What's the win?
> |
> |You associated customer traffic with non-LISP traffic. There is
> |customer traffic that can be LISP sites.
>
>
> Irrelevant to the ISP.  The customer traffic is coming to the ISP
> regardless.

Don't follow. Or, what is your point?

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