Re: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Dino,

> > Perhaps we should first agree that there is a need a *short term*
> > solution for both IPv4 and IPv6. The following (from Tony's e-mail
> > on 5/26/2008) is relevant to the discussion on whether there is
> > such a need:
> >
> >   Well, Ross Callon has been quoted as saying that the Juniper
> >   implementation will have no problems up through many millions
> >   of routes.
> >
> >   Now, conceptually, that could happen tomorrow.  However, at the
> >   current growth rates, that's likely to be many years.
> 
> The routing table size problem is not the only problem. 

Good. So, at least we seems to agree that we do not need LISP
to deal with the routing table size.

> There are many  
> enterprise sites that want to do low-cost multihoming, they want to be  
> good citizens to the Internet and don't want to inject more specifics,  
> and they want to control their ingress traffic flows.

LISP is *not* going to reduce the cost of multi-homing. To the
contrary, LISP is going to make the cost of multihoming higher than
it is today. This is because deploying and operating additional
infrastructure/mechanisms to support LISP has its own (non-zero)
cost.

Moreover, LISP would would place this cost not only on the enterprises
that want to do multihoming, but on other parties as well (which
would result in mis-alignment of cost relative to benefits).

Yakov.

--
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