IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 21 November 2012 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F4721F8903; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IFb0AeD2h6ib; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD5821F88A7; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hz11so3386559pad.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=9Lxys3f1ZhkTCa1s6RvD2j0zLKO8P2YiFWcCtNu/R/g=; b=pq9bCorpC+COfzVDvlvQfd2qeNpJ94MiyqMkdffeP2Sklf4hwuMr8x8B1Y6Qhw1/YP 9HbHbyVOe8013WDx7WbPHBvbJ/gqUY/l0L7bAfVCJ9WxBxpKmtsjgGjgpH5QXY2yNOxV 6+p2CY46fXaZY9/Uqky6cdJu+2ozZIdkApwWR9zHyAKm3sIWz1z3Nnu6xfLZbFgTEexp 6fucCeK1C55JIR4yPzUw7/x4qOpaGeyzh4qFTyYUpFQMK966jwTp/J2cqFhfvjga2mrQ suZEytau+TJcEu02ZaFXGAB7G3VlBZ7YQi7MFOqAQF4M9Ln0zmmO3Vw9ekDJGD6p7UtX FBsg==
Received: by 10.68.134.233 with SMTP id pn9mr3260133pbb.125.1353535899014; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-vpn5-1696.cisco.com (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c1sm668511pav.23.2012.11.21.14.11.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <99B9866C-41D6-4784-AA69-CD25E5910F4B@apnic.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:11:35 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2227244C-BE63-4CED-A4EE-5DBE2881247A@gmail.com>
References: <20121113144545.12836.71935.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKFn1SF4+k5gWip-WBNfbjt-qAafPbTSY8L_EBLA9Pqvbw4=kQ@mail.gmail.com> <50A66313.9090002@joelhalpern.com> <50A66B67.5000609@gmail.com> <50A67758.8000001@joelhalpern.com> <33C6C196-B881-4BAA-8E57-082B266C831A@steffann.nl> <50A6ADD0.3040000@joelhalpern.com> <45813A84-7BE9-4D21-AE3E-F3401D6E1B50@apnic.net> <99B9866C-41D6-4784-AA69-CD25E5910F4B@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net>, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, "ietf@ietf.org List" <ietf@ietf.org>, lisp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:11:40 -0000

> A possible course of action for the LISP Working Group and the IESG to
> consider would be for the existing /32 address be documented as an IANA
> Special Purpose Address allocation for use in supporting the current
> LISP experiment, and for the LISP advocates to make their case for
> particular requirements in the handling of global unicast address
> allocations in IPv6 to the regional addressing communities. This would
> allow the existing address policy development process to generate
> outcomes that appropriately address the desires and concerns of the
> broader community of stakeholders in supporting the potential
> requirements of a broad base of deployment of LISP in the Internet's
> routing environment.

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. I do believe the size of the prefix is less important than having a semantic associated with the prefix.

> We do not support the publication of this draft as an Informational RFC.
> 
> regards,
> 
>  John Curran,
>  Paul Wilson, and
>  Geoff Huston

Thanks guys.

Dino

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email