Yakov:
You've contorted what Dino said from "routing table size is not the only problem" to "routing table size ISN'T a problem". As I wrote you, IPv6 has more than taken 14 years (and counting) to deploy, and yet you're making wild claims about what you'll be able to support 14 years from now. Let's not do that.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.
While it is true that deploying LISP would have a non-zero cost, you've once again contorted the situation. One has to ask the question of what is the cost of NOT deploying LISP (or a mechanism like that). Let's engage in THAT debate.
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).
Assuming there is no benefit to those other parties. A big assumption. Eliot -- 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