Sent from my iPad
On Mar 20, 2013, at 10:26 AM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > Arturo, > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> For example I know there are enterprises that would like to multihome >>> but they find the current mechanism a barrier to this - for a start they >>> can't justify the size of PI space that would guarantee them entry to >>> the global routing table. >> >> Which is good. If they cannot justify PI space may be they should not >> get into the global routing table. > Any organization can easily justify a /48 if they can show two LOIs or contracts for peering or transit from independent ASNs. > The implication of this statement is that if you cannot afford the RIR fees, > the routers, the technical expertise to run those routers, the additional > opex associated with "BGP-capable" Internet connectivity, etc., the > services/content you provide don't deserve resiliency/redundancy/etc. > > I have trouble seeing how this can be called "good". A "necessary evil given > broken technology" perhaps, but not "good". +1 >>> LISP is about seperating the role of the ISP (as routing provider) from >>> the end user or content provider/consumer. >> >> Yes, but as mentioned before the cost is in the edge, the benefit in >> the core. > > Being able to effectively multi-home without BGP, removing the need to ever > renumber, etc., all sound like benefits to the edge to me. What part of "without BGP" benefits the edge? Multihoming with BGP is much simpler at the edge than implementing LISP. Owen
