IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 21 November 2012 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 0D6AC21F85B8; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:58:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 dsWXT7ct74XF; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEC321F8532; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id EE11B18C0D3; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:58:36 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [lisp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt> (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
Message-Id: <20121121175836.EE11B18C0D3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:58:36 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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 17:58:38 -0000

    > From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>

    > I don't think that expecting code to handle two blocks (the
    > experimental one and the permanent one) is asking too much

We disagree. For me, it's extra code/complexity, and it buys you absolutely
nothing at all.

    > If a single permanent allocation that never changes is truly necessary

Allocation != reservation. Nobody is asking for the entire chunk to be
_allocated_ (i.e. given out), just that it be _reserved_ for this use.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email