Subject: Re: [RAM] LISP and the Global Internet Architecture

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:09:01 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Russ White <[email-masked]>

    >> LISP with real PI ID space allows me to handle two huge issues: 1)
    >> merging of enterprise networks, and 2) provider independence. ...
    >> What do I get over just deploying PI space?

    > What do I get over just deploying PI space?

As a customer, nothing. It's not the customers who are going to bear the
pain of widespread PI, it's the ISP's.

Which is why it makes sense to have a jack-up solution that only the ISP's
have to deploy - they are the ones who will benefit, so they are the ones
who have the incentive to actually do it. And that's also why it makes
sense to have a jack-up solution which is completely invisible to customers
(including their routers), because deploying it buys them nothing.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:18:09 -0700

> pain of widespread PI, it's the ISP's.

Hopefully, we will get to the point where identifiers are easier to  
justify and use than PI space.  One possible mechanism for this is  
for providers to stop routing PI space...

Tony

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:28:44 -0400

> for providers to stop routing PI space...

Won't that be a faster mechanism to get their customers to stop  
paying them ? In the back of my mind I can hear
Randy Bush saying something.

> Tony

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:49:35 -0700

On Apr 2, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> paying them ?

Not if it doesn't impact connectivity.

> In the back of my mind I can hear

You should see a doctor about that.  ;-)

Tony

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:05:54 +0300

Noel,

> (including their routers), because deploying it buys them nothing.
Indeed. And invisible to their hosts, too. And as we discussed in the other
thread, as invisible as possible to their DNS operation, application
behaviour,
startup delays, etc... (The other side of this argument is this may not
be the
only improvement that is needed in the Internet, as the other parts may
also need new things. But the jack-up seems like a good match for the
routing problem, assuming we can work out the details, mapping schemes,
etc.)

Jari

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:22:55 -0400

> (including their routers), because deploying it buys them nothing.

Let's start by saying it's not a given that an ISP edge deployment
really gains us anything. Given that it does, however....

LISP won't be invisible to customers even if you only deploy it at the
ISP edge.... Enterprises might not see the additional equipment, but
they will see the impact in two other areas:

o They will no longer have any control over their inbound traffic flows.
They have precious little control now, but will lose what control they
have under LISP. I believe, in fact, this is one of the points of LISP.

o They will see the results of the "tunnel wars" between providers
trying to "out traffic engineer" their competitors, in terms of highly
variable delay times, etc.

o They will see the impact as providers fight with each other to have
the various content providers either map their space into the service
provider's tunnel endpoint space, to build traffic, or out of the
service provider's tunnel endpoint space, to reduce traffic.

Of course, the most likely result will be a rash of lawsuits over
control of the "mapping tables," generated by LISP, which will then come
down to minute control over who maps what where based in law and court
cases.

:-)

Russ

- --
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:30:58 -0400

> justify and use than PI space.  One possible mechanism for this is for
> providers to stop routing PI space...

When providers stop accepting checks for connections to known spammers,
I'll have more confidence they have the discipline to not route PI
space. The actual sequence of events is likely to be:

1. LISP 1 deploys. This increases the sizes of the tables held,
increases churn, and causes a few dozen technical problems no-one
thought of. It causes major heartache for large enterprise customers and
content providers, so a number of them get an "opt out" from their
providers so their p-loc/p-id mappings are 1-to-1 direct, or "special
consideration" in the placement of p-loc/p-id mappings in the various
tables (all for a cost, of course).

2. LISP 1.5, 1.78, 1.912455, 2.0, 3.0, and 19.0 never deploy, the
providers having gotten what they wanted in a new revenue stream, and a
way to traffic engineer through and around their competitors with no
manual tunnel setup.

:-)

Russ

- --

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:49:15 -0700

Noel, 

> (including their routers), because deploying it buys them nothing.

It surprises me to hear you say this. Pushing the ITR out
towards the provider edge and away from the end user would
not seem consistent with RFC1955; would it be consistent with
RFC1992? And, if you push the ITR out to the provider edge,
how would you handle mobility management within the customer
network - Mobile IP?

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 06:49:15 -0700

Noel, 

Fred

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 06:52:29 -0700

Tony,

> for providers to stop routing PI space...

Let's get some reality check on your suggestion "for providers
to stop routing PI space". As Russ pointed out in his e-mail:

  Which SP is, today, refusing to accept business by way of refusing to
  advertise PI space? I don't know of any, myself. For the most part,
  providers are in business to make money, and paying customers are hard
  to turn away.

Yakov.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:51:54 +0200

Yakov,

I was with you for a while, but here we differ:

>   providers are in business to make money, and paying customers are hard

They have no alternative to offer their customers today, so this 
question is entirely irrelevant.

Eliot

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:36:39 -0700

> question is entirely irrelevant.

I mostly agree with Eliot here.  However, we can also look at the  
economics of the longer term view.  Suppose that we reach a state  
where we have an adequate and beneficial ID/locator split deployed.   
I believe that we've already discussed the benefits to the ISP for  
simply having the singly-homed customer using ID/locator (i.e., ease  
of moving the customer topologically, without customer renumbering).   
That is a benefit to the ISP.

For a multi-homed customer, the ISP can either accept a PI prefix and  
deal with the overhead (management of route filters, BGP session  
maintenance, etc.) or the ISP can assign a locator.  Now, I'm sure  
that if the ISP is offered sufficient amounts of money, they can be  
persuaded to advertise the PI.  However, for them, that would seem to  
be the operational exception.

 From the customer point of view, the ease of renumbering is the  
primary benefit, coupled with the removal of the pain of having to  
justify their PI prefix.

Thus, if we do our jobs properly, we should end up in a situation  
where all parties are economically motivated to deploy an ID/locator  
split.

Tony