[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GROW] LISP at GROW

On 8/7/08 12:00 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:

|On 8/6/08 5:16 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
|> Ok, but I'm less concerned about the business model than I |am about the 
|> eventual need to renumber.  Is that going to be a requirement or not?
|
|I suspect that any 'separation-class' approach (e.g. map-n-encap) |_lessens_ the requirement for renumbering. 


Agreed.  It shifts the need from being an impediment to changing ISPs to one
of being an impediment to changing mapping providers.
Didn't you just say you were less concerned about business models? But I guess you are concerned because you brought them up again. Here are the two responses I gave to your concern about 'lock-in' previously: 

On 8/5/08 4:14 AM, Scott Brim allegedly wrote:

If it changes its ISP but doesn't change its EIDs, then it's still
locked into a 'mapping provider'.
I'm guessing you're concerned about business relationships. Locked in? First, you are already "locked in", for example to your DNS provider, and somehow you survive. Second, the possibilities for business relationships are wide open. For example the lowest levels of the ALT could be provided by small enterprises (like DNS names), and the key higher levels by non-profits. So I think it's wildly premature to assume the worst. 

On 8/6/08 3:18 AM, Scott Brim allegedly wrote:
My understanding is that for a site to have its EIDs aggregate, it must be part of the virtual topology associated with a given 
'mapping provider'. And if they want to change mapping providers,
they would need to change EIDs and renumber their site.
Aha, the 'mapping provider' shibboleth. I thought we dealt with that quite a while ago. I wouldn't make any of those assumptions. There are no restrictions on the business model for how ALT will be operated. I cannot predict. One would assume that the higher levels will be run by RIRs or something like them, but the lower levels are wide open and I expect some kind of small business competition there. 

Onward ...

> However, there still

seems to be a requirement to eventually renumber, and per Lixia's RRG
presentation, we really haven't found a decent way of renumbering.  Should
we presume that we will?  Or should we give up renumbering as a lost cause?


First, I don't see why there is a requirement for renumbering.
However, if there is, I have some faith in people's ability to overcome single obstacles. If the only problem in the world were renumbering we would find a way to deal with it. 

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow