[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Comments on draft-lewis-lisp-interworking
|The PTR just encapsulates. The return traffic uses the RLOCs
|LISP site's point of view) which are routable addresses of the non-
If you do that, then the return traffic can't be encapsulated in any way.
That implies that the source addresses seen by the core are non-routable
EIDs, and you would run into source address filtering issues.
|I bet an exchange carrier would love to attract traffic.
Relative to other exchanges, certainly. However an exchange would still
have to have a way to deliver the attracted traffic. How?
|And why does every service provider want Google, Yahoo, MSN,
|EBAY, and MySpace to be their customer?
In the words of peering negotiations, there are content networks and eyeball
networks. All of the ones that you list above are content networks, where
outbound is much higher than inbound. Eyeball networks are the reverse,
where inbound is much higher than outbound (ignoring P2P ;-). Eyeball
networks would like to balance their traffic load, so they want to attract
PTRs are neutral: they attract customer traffic (not new) or non-customer
traffic (hairpinned). What's the win?
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.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