Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC

["Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Nice to try and keep it short.

But I was hoping for some more detail and explanation.
I have not followed the discussions (if any) in the WG
so I may be missing the reasons why you need this much
space. I would hope that the WG (if they have consensus
(which may be something different than "the WG felt"))
could elaborate or summarize the discussions that lead
to the conclusion that this amount of space is needed
and makes sense.

Pointers to the WG mlist discussions where the pros
and cons of various prefixes sizes are discussed or
summarize would also be welcome.

Bert

On 11/15/12 3:46 PM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Hi Bert,
>
> On 15 Nov. 2012, at 11:55 , Bert Wijnen (IETF) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> So it is not asking just a /16 but also asking for reservation of a /12.
>>
>> Pretty big space.
>>
>> And in the list of reasons, I mainly read that it is "sufficiently large",
>> but not much about why it needs to be this big. Why would a smaller
>> allocation not be sufficient?
>>
>
> Well, to keep it short, the WG felt that /16 is the "right size", and that if the growth of LISP would be so important as to need a bigger space would be nice to have it contiguous (so implementations can just change the prefix length).
>
> Luigi
>
>> Bert
>
>