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

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>

    >> The routing table size problem is not the only problem.

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

Umm, logic fault...


    > 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.

It's hard to compare the cost of that infrastructure/mechanism with the costs
of the alternatives, though, which seem to be either:

- i) PI supported by the routing (q.v. that study that person did which tried
to come up with a monetary figure for each entry in the DFZ table), or
- ii) multiple addresses per host, visible to all (which is the Shim6
approach, which has received a lot of flack).

Multi-homing, as I keep saying, is a benefit, but it's a benefit that has
costs. The only question is how large are the costs, and who's going to pay
them. So, what's your preferred method of supporting multi-homing, and why do
you prefer that one? (This is not a snarky question, but a completely serious
one.)

And here's another one that occurs to me: a lot of people seem to see the
value in separating location and identity. Do you agree this is a good move,
and if not, why not? (Again, totally seriously.)


    > 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).

I'm not quite sure of your meaning here? Did you mean that if we adopt LISP,
all sites will wind up having to maintain mappings, even if they are not
multi-homed? (I hope it's obvious that a general identity-location mapping
system provides other benefits than just multi-homing, e.g. provider
independence).

Or did you have some other meaning of "place this cost not only on the
enterprises that want to do multihoming, but on other parties as well", e.g.
somehow part of the cost is being borne by other parts of the infrastructure,
not moved as close as possible to the entities being multi-homed? If so, could
you elaborate?

	Noel

--
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