Subject: Re: [lisp] Fwd: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:49:46 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Jeff Wheeler <[email-masked]>

    >> why will multi-homing of more sites elsewhere on the network
    >> increase the number of nodes the _average_ site communicates with

    > Because you will benefit less from aggregation of many users into a
    > single unit of state information -- a CIDR route entry in the DFZ --
    > the average working set increases.

You seem to be hearing a different question than the one I am asking,
because you're giving an answer that talks about mechanisms, state, etc
whereas I'm talking about usage patterns (at a high level).

Let me try and ask it again, making the wording less susceptible to

  Why will multi-homing of more sites on the network increase the number
  of distant sites (whether those sites are multi-homed or not) which the
  _average_ site communicates with?

Note that I am asking about _sites_, not routing entries, mapping entries,
or any other low-level mechanistic things. Once we're straight there,
we'll work on into lower-level issues like state, etc.

	Noel

---

From: Jeff Wheeler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:38:45 -0400

> we'll work on into lower-level issues like state, etc.

Today you may perceive a "site" as an entry in the BGP DFZ, which may
encompass several tens of thousands of end-users.  When a "site"
becomes a SOHO network, a cell tower, a public wireless hot-spot, etc.
the average number of end-users per "site" decreases and thus the
number of distinct "sites" you are communicating with increases.

You can pretend this is a semantic issue all day, but what it boils
down to is the number of units of routing state will increase to serve
the same number of end-users.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <[email-masked]>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts